Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2020 11:45:55 GMT
It's not what he's saying though, he admitted that he stayed at home while his better half worked. Most of the rest are mere facts that you can look up yourself.
|
|
|
Post by cousinlou on Oct 20, 2020 12:06:22 GMT
The big issue which I think has pushed people away from Conservatism in the UK is that it is no longer possible for the "average person" to have a family where the mother stays at home and rears the children, or that one person does it. We were able to do it because of my wife's salary and then being able to start up her own business. Today id argue that most families have two working parents. Why is that? A combination of a lot of things, not all of which are palatable to lefties funnily enough. 1. De-industrialisation and free market economics, particularly in the North 2. Women entering the workplace in greater numbers since the sixties 3. High levels of immigration. Whilst 2 and 3 obviously have very positive benefits too, which are plainly obvious in terms of freedom to work, dignity etc etc, larger numbers of people in the workplace means that wages go down or at least do not rise.More people working means less people in the community during the day. That may change back a little because of Covid. Less people in the community and on the high Street (women would shop every day until the advent of the supermarket) meant that less people are affiliated with the community, which is where Conservative beliefs often stem from. I identify something I like or see as good and I want to protect it. Average UK weekly wages. This would suggest otherwise.Wages went up 83% since 2000, while inflation acc to the BoE calculator has been just under 70% for that period.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2020 12:29:58 GMT
It depends where you are Markus. In the south east the financial issues really are the overriding issue. I knew someone whose son was a video director with a top ad agency. A dream job right? Creative with a big salary. But he was a sharing a pokey little flat in the East End with four others. It was all he could get or afford. It does matter were you are but it doesn't excuse every one. I've 3rd level education in media and film/tv, we were warned only the top % make good money from that kinda of job. Also if you do get big salary gig like your friends son, pretend you're only getting paid 50%/60% of your salary and save the rest for rainy and lean days on the work front. That last bit has flat out ignored what I've been saying about the cost of living. You're a bit naive about these things with respect, you're pretty much basing everything on your home town.
|
|
|
Post by tory on Oct 20, 2020 12:36:54 GMT
The cost of living and house prices have also risen exorbitantly too though.
My point is that one person providing and the other looking after the family is now solely the preserve of the middle class and above.
Up until the 1980s that was not the case. When I was growing up, it was rare, at least in my anedoctal experience, to have both parents working. A family could do relatively well on one income - as long as they saved prudently and didn't spend above their means. My parents were an example of that - my father had a middling job in Fire Insurance in the UK and didn't earn a great deal. They were able to get a mortgage on just one salary and my mother was able to bring up three children without having to work. She did the odd bit of part-time work here and there, but not too much. Today I'm not so sure such a situation exists without one person in the family earning £60K +.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2020 12:39:02 GMT
It does matter were you are but it doesn't excuse every one. I've 3rd level education in media and film/tv, we were warned only the top % make good money from that kinda of job. Also if you do get big salary gig like your friends son, pretend you're only getting paid 50%/60% of your salary and save the rest for rainy and lean days on the work front. That last bit has flat out ignored what I've been saying about the cost of living. You're a bit naive about these things with respect, you're pretty much basing everything on your home town. Nope, it's not always possible but you you should try and live off 50%/60% when you can. Also, i didn't make this up, it was industry professionals advising us to do this. ..and nope, i'm not basing this only on my home town. I said before location is a factor, you're making assumptions.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Oct 20, 2020 12:48:01 GMT
Youthful idealism is tempered by real world experience. Some groups, look at academics for example, don't gain this real world experience like most of us do so they live in a wee bubble, a world of ideas and theories rather than real world solutions and hard boiled pragmatism that your average person is more interested in. The average person in the street faces consequences you know. In the same way that your Hollywood celeb can talk about socialism but they are financially independent enough to not face consequences should things change politically. You're assuming a move rightwards is governed solely by practical experience and intelligence, whilst it may equally be caused by close mindedness, increasing intolerance and selfishness. Furthermore, it should be remembered many don't drift to the right and retain their political beliefs for the majority of their lives.
I believe its the primary driver, yes. Moving further to the left can be caused by the same things…dogmatism and intolerance of other groups (centrists, conservatives) although people are, generally speaking, well intentioned regardless of where they are on the political spectrum. You are attributing a move to the right (which can of course just mean a move to the centre/centre right from the left) as maybe being "equally" caused by prejudice, selfishness and closemindedness which I think is a bit uncharitable and it doesn’t chime with my experience or those people I know in the real world who have moved away from the far left, in particular. You are suggesting it is down to a moral chink rather than just changes in perspective.
Ultimately they believe that man is morally perfectible. Because of this, they believe that there exist some people who are further along the path of moral development, have overcome self-interest and are immune to the influence of power and therefore can act as surrogate decision-makers for the rest of society.
What Sowell is describing is this "social justice" vision of the anointed. You can’t overcome self-interest and people will vote to protect their own interests and to make their lives - and families - better.....from the young student who votes for free education and redistribution of wealth to the middle class banker who doesn't want to pay 35% tax and so on. I don't see that as "selfishness" and I don't think it's helpful to view it as such. It's just people man and you will not change them.
Many people do retain their political beliefs their whole lives but people are also dogmatic and tribal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2020 12:53:49 GMT
Not this bloody Sowell fella again..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2020 12:56:27 GMT
The system does encourage self-interest yes, that's why some of us want to change it! That's an analytical position, as much as it is a moral/emotional one.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Oct 20, 2020 13:06:12 GMT
The system reflects our self interest. The market comes from this desire. This is Us trying to maximise and channel this self-interest into profit and wealth and so on that benefits as many people as possible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2020 13:08:43 GMT
The system reflects our self interest. The market comes from this desire. This is Us trying to maximise and channel this self-interest into profit and wealth and so on that benefits as many people as possible. Free market capitalism creates the inequalities, it doesn't minimise them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2020 6:28:47 GMT
Neoliberalism does the exact opposite of what it claims to do. It prioritises capital flows into the existing financial centres leaving many peripheralised and frozen out. The market creates wealth, yes, the state does not, but the wealth is useless if it's not working for people. It's precisely because I think that man is self-interested that I want a strong social system to put an emergency brake on this. If I thought differently, I may be a libertarian and believe charity would be a solid idea to solve problems.
|
|
|
Post by cousinlou on Oct 21, 2020 7:19:54 GMT
You're assuming a move rightwards is governed solely by practical experience and intelligence, whilst it may equally be caused by close mindedness, increasing intolerance and selfishness. Furthermore, it should be remembered many don't drift to the right and retain their political beliefs for the majority of their lives.
I believe its the primary driver, yes. Moving further to the left can be caused by the same things…dogmatism and intolerance of other groups (centrists, conservatives) although people are, generally speaking, well intentioned regardless of where they are on the political spectrum. You are attributing a move to the right (which can of course just mean a move to the centre/centre right from the left) as maybe being "equally" caused by prejudice, selfishness and closemindedness which I think is a bit uncharitable and it doesn’t chime with my experience or those people I know in the real world who have moved away from the far left, in particular. You are suggesting it is down to a moral chink rather than just changes in perspective.
Ultimately they believe that man is morally perfectible. Because of this, they believe that there exist some people who are further along the path of moral development, have overcome self-interest and are immune to the influence of power and therefore can act as surrogate decision-makers for the rest of society.
What Sowell is describing is this "social justice" vision of the anointed. You can’t overcome self-interest and people will vote to protect their own interests and to make their lives - and families - better.....from the young student who votes for free education and redistribution of wealth to the middle class banker who doesn't want to pay 35% tax and so on. I don't see that as "selfishness" and I don't think it's helpful to view it as such. It's just people man and you will not change them.
Many people do retain their political beliefs their whole lives but people are also dogmatic and tribal.
This seems an outdated view. 'Voting with your wallet' as it was called here. Even though we may think it is not enough, there has been a massive increase in expendable income for the working class and an incredible growth of the middle class population since, say, the fifties. With that less focus on just income matters has developed. I know plenty of students that vote green and some very wealthy people that vote labour as well as people that have typical working class jobs that vote liberal. In fact, I know very few people of which you could predict by their income where they would vote on.
|
|