Sorry you think Britain is Socialist?
That is beyond parody my friend. I urge you to come here and see for yourself
Tata have been itching to outsource for years; this is just a smokescreen.
Britain is quite socialist actually. It’s been run by fabian Socialists for a while now.
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
Britain is quite socialist actually. It’s been run by fabian Socialists for a while now.[/quote]
Trust me, New Labour (that be who you must mean with the Fabians right, they are a Labour Party think tank) were not socialist. And we have a Coatlition government now which is Tory in all but name that is anti-Fabian. In the last few decades we’ve had privatisation of almost all nationalised institutions (railways, water apart from in Scotland, energy, steel, motoring, telecommunications) and the huge growth of a financial sector. and the following banking criis, and growth of the super rich. Healthcare is the last big nationalised institution and hell Cameron is trying to dismantle that too now, and certain aspects of the bloated welfare state, which I agree with him.
A socialist British government wouldn’t have abolished the 10p income tax rate for the poorest in society, nor would it be cutting funding to unviersites by 80%. We had under the labour government some social policies that could be interpreted as socialist but the current government is trying to rebalance the structural deficit by pruning the very large public sector, creating all the protest marches you’d expect
It’s more like: British workers can’t be paid 1$per hour
britain is as much socialist as I am an twelve year old asian girl LOL…
The word you are looking for is not socialist, but socialliberalist or centrist.
As a hiring manager here (US) I see the same thing. Usually 4 of the top 5 candidates are either immigrants or 1st generation Americans. it’s all about return on investment. If you can pay some one $1/hour and get someone who’ll bust their ass for you or a $20/hour slacker who is only willing to ‘work’ 40.00 hrs/wk and fucks off for 10% of that, it’s an easy choice to make.
[quote]Redmond6376 wrote:
As a hiring manager here (US) I see the same thing. Usually 4 of the top 5 candidates are either immigrants or 1st generation Americans. it’s all about return on investment. If you can pay some one $1/hour and get someone who’ll bust their ass for you or a $20/hour slacker who is only willing to ‘work’ 40.00 hrs/wk and fucks off for 10% of that, it’s an easy choice to make. [/quote]
Yes but why should labourers be paid $1, well under the minimum wage? If they are slacking then they should be fired but this is all about maximising profits by driving wages down. Tata are asset stripping and looking for any excuse to do so. I admit they should be able to talk to someone on 330 on an afternoon though.
[quote]Bambi wrote:
[quote]Redmond6376 wrote:
As a hiring manager here (US) I see the same thing. Usually 4 of the top 5 candidates are either immigrants or 1st generation Americans. it’s all about return on investment. If you can pay some one $1/hour and get someone who’ll bust their ass for you or a $20/hour slacker who is only willing to ‘work’ 40.00 hrs/wk and fucks off for 10% of that, it’s an easy choice to make. [/quote]
Yes but why should labourers be paid $1, well under the minimum wage? If they are slacking then they should be fired but this is all about maximising profits by driving wages down. Tata are asset stripping and looking for any excuse to do so. I admit they should be able to talk to someone on 330 on an afternoon though.[/quote]
He thinks its good because he is a reactionary.
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Bambi wrote:
[quote]Redmond6376 wrote:
As a hiring manager here (US) I see the same thing. Usually 4 of the top 5 candidates are either immigrants or 1st generation Americans. it’s all about return on investment. If you can pay some one $1/hour and get someone who’ll bust their ass for you or a $20/hour slacker who is only willing to ‘work’ 40.00 hrs/wk and fucks off for 10% of that, it’s an easy choice to make. [/quote]
Yes but why should labourers be paid $1, well under the minimum wage? If they are slacking then they should be fired but this is all about maximising profits by driving wages down. Tata are asset stripping and looking for any excuse to do so. I admit they should be able to talk to someone on 330 on an afternoon though.[/quote]
He thinks its good because he is a reactionary.
[/quote]
Reactionary means able to do simple math, right?
[quote]Redmond6376 wrote:
As a hiring manager here (US) I see the same thing. Usually 4 of the top 5 candidates are either immigrants or 1st generation Americans. it’s all about return on investment. If you can pay some one $1/hour and get someone who’ll bust their ass for you or a $20/hour slacker who is only willing to ‘work’ 40.00 hrs/wk and fucks off for 10% of that, it’s an easy choice to make. [/quote]
well then go for it. Next step YOU get paid 1$ and forced to work overtime and on the weekend. Everything else is evil socialism bro.
If someone is willing to work for 1$, what’s wrong with that? Why shouldn’t he get the job rather than the one that demands 20x what he does?
^I think that in a ideal world with better distribution of wealth that would be self-evident. I am not gonna start to disgress on this. We have different ideology, I think that economy should serve the quality of life of the most people and you believe in something else. Therefore I think we should share the wealth.
Just how rich this tata guy is and how poor the people are in india? Yes I know considering this as a problem is grossly out of fashion.But that’s just the way it is isn’t it.
On a side note you don’t have to be an oracle to see that in our countries this quality of life is going to deteriore itself greatly in the future mainly because of overpopulation.
[quote]jasmincar wrote:
^I think that in a ideal world with better distribution of wealth that would be self-evident. I am not gonna start to disgress on this. We have different ideology, I think that economy should serve the quality of life of the most people and you believe in something else. Therefore I think we should share the wealth.
Just how rich this tata guy is and how poor the people are in india? Yes I know considering this as a problem is grossly out of fashion.But that’s just the way it is isn’t it.
On a side note you don’t have to be an oracle to see that in our countries this quality of life is going to deteriore itself greatly in the future mainly because of overpopulation. [/quote]
unfortunately. the more you share the wealth, the less average quality of live you get, at least in material terms.
It does however help that at least then all people share in the misery and that seems to improve some peoples mood.
[quote]orion wrote:
unfortunately. the more you share the wealth, the less average quality of live you get, at least in material terms.
[/quote]
that remains to be proven
[quote]jasmincar wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
unfortunately. the more you share the wealth, the less average quality of live you get, at least in material terms.
[/quote]
that remains to be proven[/quote]
Really?
How many examples would you need?
Actually it must be so, given the nature of utility, but I have given up on explaining why exactly.
Logic < wishful thinking.
[quote]Redmond6376 wrote:
All government is de facto socialism but I don’t know what this article has to do with socialism.
This example is as capitalistic as it can get under a socialism.
[quote]Bambi wrote:
Yes but why should labourers be paid $1, well under the minimum wage? If they are slacking then they should be fired but this is all about maximising profits by driving wages down. Tata are asset stripping and looking for any excuse to do so. I admit they should be able to talk to someone on 330 on an afternoon though.[/quote]
Minimum wage where? That’s where the socilaism comes in. Gov’t mandates a ‘minimum wage’ so business just moves where they can get better value for thier money. Then all the minimum wager-ers are unemployed.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Redmond6376 wrote:
All government is de facto socialism but I don’t know what this article has to do with socialism.
This example is as capitalistic as it can get under a socialism.[/quote]
This is an example of a capitalist response to a socialist environment. The unions and thier cronnies in gov’t have led to an entitlement centered society, so Tata simply moves where they get more value for thier money.
[quote]jasmincar wrote:
^I think that in a ideal world with better distribution of wealth that would be self-evident. I am not gonna start to disgress on this. We have different ideology, I think that economy should serve the quality of life of the most people and you believe in something else. Therefore I think we should share the wealth. [/quote]
Don’t go telling me what I believe 
I too want a high standard of living for all. It’s just that I realize the best way to realize my beliefs is through the free market, NOT socialism. Socialism will lead to equality, sure, but it will be the equality of the lowest common denominator and that is not something I want.