Re: The State Pension
Posted: January 22nd, 2017, 10:43 pm
Well, thank goodness for your honesty, Toppers. It has probably saved the country a lot of grief
Shares, Investment and Personal Finance Discussion Forums
https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/
OZYU wrote: An interesting way to put the parable of the talents in a modern setting, not that it needs it much.
Equalising wealth by policy will just create massive unfairness to those of us who have definitely earned the better resources they have through a lifetime of hard graft. I get very fed up to constantly having to contemplate the concept of increasingly forking out for people who are just lazy and careless with the little they have, just like we got fed up in A&E recently waiting for two hours while my wife was bleeding from a nasty fall which eventually needed many stiches, while being surrounded by a whole bunch of young drunks, who most probably are there every week, getting priority.
Ozyu
Stonge wrote:TopOnePercent, not everyone has your virtues, which you were lucky enough to be born with.
Have some compassion for those less capable than you.
dspp wrote:Most risk-taking ends in failure. For example that's why VCs assume only 1 in 10 investments will succeed.
That's why evolution has set up most people to not take risks. Yes to work hard within various comfort zones, but not take serious risks. From an evolutionary perspective at organism level risk taking is bad. But at species level it is vital.
So ....... say 90/100 are not risk takers - they'll muddle along most of the time. Then 10/100 are risk takers ........ and 9/10 will fail. And the 1/10 that succeeds will be such a big payoff that the whole of the species / nation / clan / whatever benefits.
So as a society we should be mindful of how to look after the 9/10 that try but fail. Because for many of them it was pure chance as to which way their particular outcome came about. Certainly often no fault of theirs. And all of those 10 need the other 90 to be passive participants. So whilst I appreciate why Maggie railed against society, she did not rail against community. And as a community we should be compassionate. It could indeed be us on the sidewalk one day in some circumstances.
Some of us (including me) grew up on council estates and worked hard (me too). But there are places on this world where growing up poor and working hard will not necessarily lead to riches & success, most especially if you are not intelligent / pretty / born in the UK / whatever. I'm all with you about designing the system to discourage slacking, and believe me I rail against that. But remember to be compassionate.
regards, dspp
Stonge wrote:TopOnePercent, not everyone has your virtues, which you were lucky enough to be born with.
Have some compassion for those less capable than you.
Stonge wrote:And when the robots take over your job?
Should we blame you for being slightly below the line and let you starve?
Big changes are coming and they're going to take away livelihoods from all sorts of people who deservedly think they are irreplaceable.
There's too little big picture thinking on this thread.
dspp wrote:Most risk-taking ends in failure. For example that's why VCs assume only 1 in 10 investments will succeed.
That's why evolution has set up most people to not take risks. Yes to work hard within various comfort zones, but not take serious risks. From an evolutionary perspective at organism level risk taking is bad. But at species level it is vital.
So ....... say 90/100 are not risk takers - they'll muddle along most of the time. Then 10/100 are risk takers ........ and 9/10 will fail. And the 1/10 that succeeds will be such a big payoff that the whole of the species / nation / clan / whatever benefits.
So as a society we should be mindful of how to look after the 9/10 that try but fail. Because for many of them it was pure chance as to which way their particular outcome came about. Certainly often no fault of theirs. And all of those 10 need the other 90 to be passive participants. So whilst I appreciate why Maggie railed against society, she did not rail against community. And as a community we should be compassionate. It could indeed be us on the sidewalk one day in some circumstances.
Some of us (including me) grew up on council estates and worked hard (me too). But there are places on this world where growing up poor and working hard will not necessarily lead to riches & success, most especially if you are not intelligent / pretty / born in the UK / whatever. I'm all with you about designing the system to discourage slacking, and believe me I rail against that. But remember to be compassionate.
regards, dspp
TopOnePercent wrote:Education and effort are not risks.
TopOnePercent wrote:If a robot does one day come for my job, good luck to it. I'll simply go and do something further up the value chain.
dspp wrote:TopOnePercent wrote:Education and effort are not risks.
Education and effort can be risks. Especially education, less obviously effort.
Studying very hard to be the best buggy whip designer & manufacturer gets you nowhere if somewhere in the world some other person invents an automobile and buggies are out and horseless carriages are in. That world does not care one jot about perfectly educated bugg whip makers or designers. And if you cannot bridge the gulf to become a automobile designer then you are Manure out of luck. The more specialised your education the more Manure out of luck you are. The harder you have worked, the longer you have put off everything else, the more specialist your PhD in buggy whip design, the harder it is to retool yourself to be - and be hired - as a internal combustion designer.
dspp wrote:I suspect I am in general agreement with many of you re UK societal issues, but still not all should be tarred with the feckless brush. I know people who are plain stupid (that's the luck of the birth draw) but honest and grafters - but they'll never retire as millionaires however many toilets they clean and welds they lay down. They still deserve my % going into the pot for the NHS and education and whatever in my opinion. I'll rail with you against feckless wasters, but not against the poor grafters. And in many countries for much of human history being a poor grafter was the only option available.
AJC5001 wrote:TopOnePercent wrote:If a robot does one day come for my job, good luck to it. I'll simply go and do something further up the value chain.
Which suggests that, when the robots have taken over all the jobs at your level, you will be able to out-compete eveyone else and supplant someone 'further up the value chain'.
If that's the case, you must be currently underachieving.
Adrian