Shops could face legal action over 'lads' mags'

[Seth]

There is now a permanent underclass who no longer have manual skilled or unskilled work to do as such jobs don't exist any more. That isn't changing any time soon. Even relatively basic jobs are pretty skilled these days, my local charity shop won't 'employ' someone as a volunteer unless they are a graduate as they need to learn a large range of skills to do the job

And everybody else should be forced to labor on behalf of the indolent, lazy and wilfully uneducated why, exactly?

Because you have to live alongside them ?, its protection money and a damn good investment

I pay extortionists in copper-jacketed lead delivered at 3000 FPS, 168 grains at a time.

[Collector1337]

Ban full-time jobs?

You've gotta be shitting me.

[Coito ergo sum]

This I take issue with. I don't see any less violence or crime in the countries that do the things you advocate. We get riots all over Europe attributed to young unemployed men, even those who are being paid this protection money

All countries including the US have a welfare state and pay this protection money ,also rioting seems to be common on both sides of the Atlantic. Extreme poverty leads to revolution w which is why capitalism reformed itself to ensure that didnt happen ie accepted the welfare state

Yes, it's paid, but it's not protection money -- or, at least, it isn't buying any protection. Of course we have a welfare state, but to suggest that it's being paid as protection money is demonstrably inaccurate.

Rioting being common on both sides of the Atlantic is true enough, but we don't see less of it in countries that pay more protection money. That's the point.

Extreme poverty doesn't lead to revolution, necessarily, but we don't have "extreme poverty" in the US, and the most revolutionary time in US history was when our country was the most wealthy and the most youthful. The 1960s.

We need a welfare state, but not as protection money. It doesn't buy protection. It provides a safety net, that ought to be as temporary as possible, for those who are having a hard time. Certainly, some, who are physically or mentally incapable of supporting themselves ought to be taken care of. However, the danger is in allowing this safety net to expand too far, until people who don't really need it are being placed on it. We see this now in the US with the monumental swelling of the "disability" rolls - we now have like 11 million people receiving "disability" checks from the government, we have record numbers receiving food stamps, and record numbers receiving every other kind of benefit. It's flippin' party out there.

And very often, as those roles swell, the rest who are not receiving such funds start wondering if they ought to be getting theirs too, and it continues to spiral up from there.

The problem from a socio economic perspective is that this sort of thing is not sustainable. Eventually, the money runs out. And, when that happens, you get what we saw in, say, Greece where people take to the streets and set fires when the government tries to raise the retirement age from 53 to 55 or something like that. The money runs out. And, money, even fiat currency, has a limit to it, and you can't just keep printing it. There are mathematical models that predict how much can be printed until the system just breaks and the money will be worthless. There are limits. One must recognize the reality that society and the economy is supported by production and commerce, and that there is a limit, somehwhere, to what the "doers" can support. Eventually, the camel's back breaks. Eventually, the well runs dry. And, it is when that happens that you get revolution.

[Coito ergo sum]

This I take issue with. I don't see any less violence or crime in the countries that do the things you advocate. We get riots all over Europe attributed to young unemployed men, even those who are being paid this protection money

All countries including the US have a welfare state and pay this protection money ,also rioting seems to be common on both sides of the Atlantic. Extreme poverty leads to revolution w which is why capitalism reformed itself to ensure that didnt happen ie accepted the welfare state

Yes, it's paid, but it's not protection money -- or, at least, it isn't buying any protection. Of course we have a welfare state, but to suggest that it's being paid as protection money is demonstrably inaccurate.

Rioting being common on both sides of the Atlantic is true enough, but we don't see less of it in countries that pay more protection money. That's the point.

Extreme poverty doesn't lead to revolution, necessarily, but we don't have "extreme poverty" in the US, and the most revolutionary time in US history was when our country was the most wealthy and the most youthful. The 1960s.

We need a welfare state, but not as protection money. It doesn't buy protection. It provides a safety net, that ought to be as temporary as possible, for those who are having a hard time. Certainly, some, who are physically or mentally incapable of supporting themselves ought to be taken care of. However, the danger is in allowing this safety net to expand too far, until people who don't really need it are being placed on it. We see this now in the US with the monumental swelling of the "disability" rolls - we now have like 11 million people receiving "disability" checks from the government, we have record numbers receiving food stamps, and record numbers receiving every other kind of benefit. It's flippin' party out there.

And very often, as those roles swell, the rest who are not receiving such funds start wondering if they ought to be getting theirs too, and it continues to spiral up from there.

The problem from a socio economic perspective is that this sort of thing is not sustainable. Eventually, the money runs out. And, when that happens, you get what we saw in, say, Greece where people take to the streets and set fires when the government tries to raise the retirement age from 53 to 55 or something like that. The money runs out. And, money, even fiat currency, has a limit to it, and you can't just keep printing it. There are mathematical models that predict how much can be printed until the system just breaks and the money will be worthless. There are limits. One must recognize the reality that society and the economy is supported by production and commerce, and that there is a limit, somehwhere, to what the "doers" can support. Eventually, the camel's back breaks. Eventually, the well runs dry. And, it is when that happens that you get revolution.

[MrJonno]

Yes, it's paid, but it's not protection money -- or, at least, it isn't buying any protection. Of course we have a welfare state, but to suggest that it's being paid as protection money is demonstrably inaccurate.

It's a safety net but its also simply protection against social instability and revolution , the free market doesn't work so well when someone petrol bombs the market or you just take Seth attitude of arming up and getting ready to shoot the proles if they get uppity

There is no extreme poverty in the 1st world because simply you have a welfare state to make sure it doesn't happen

As for banning full time jobs it one idea, in a future world of 50% unemployment who knows what people might come up with. If you are Judge Dredd fan having more than one job was a serious crime in Megacity One. We are entering a world where its just silly to think everyone is going to be economic productive, don't know what the solution is but we had better find one because if we don't it won't matter if you have a job or not society will collapse

[JimC]

MrJonno wrote:

The days of most 18-21 years old having part time jobs while they study is long long gone, without a lot of personal contacts I doubt if many 21 years will have done any paid work when they leave university, if they are lucky they would have done some work experience

Certainly not true in Oz. Nick, and all his uni friends have part-time jobs. Nick tutors high school students in maths - he organised that himself. They probably don't make enough to live independently in the sense of rent; most of 'em live at home. But Nick makes enough money to take care of all his other expenses...

[MrJonno]

MrJonno wrote:

The days of most 18-21 years old having part time jobs while they study is long long gone, without a lot of personal contacts I doubt if many 21 years will have done any paid work when they leave university, if they are lucky they would have done some work experience

Certainly not true in Oz. Nick, and all his uni friends have part-time jobs. Nick tutors high school students in maths - he organised that himself. They probably don't make enough to live independently in the sense of rent; most of 'em live at home. But Nick makes enough money to take care of all his other expenses...

Australian economy is booming , just about the only western economy that is probably due to its close links to China

[JimC]

MrJonno wrote:

The days of most 18-21 years old having part time jobs while they study is long long gone, without a lot of personal contacts I doubt if many 21 years will have done any paid work when they leave university, if they are lucky they would have done some work experience

Certainly not true in Oz. Nick, and all his uni friends have part-time jobs. Nick tutors high school students in maths - he organised that himself. They probably don't make enough to live independently in the sense of rent; most of 'em live at home. But Nick makes enough money to take care of all his other expenses...

Australian economy is booming , just about the only western economy that is probably due to its close links to China

There is that...

[MrJonno]

Congrats on Australia being the happiest place in the world, hard to measure happiness but in real its far more important than 'freedom' which is even more silly to try and measure.

Personally I could stand the weather , far too hot but apart from that had a great time when I over there a few years back

[Collector1337]

Congrats on Australia being the happiest place in the world, hard to measure happiness but in real its far more important than 'freedom' which is even more silly to try and measure.

You're either a huge troll or a massive idiot.

[Seth]

Congrats on Australia being the happiest place in the world, hard to measure happiness but in real its far more important than 'freedom' which is even more silly to try and measure.

You're either a huge troll or a massive idiot.

...or both.

[Collector1337]

[rainbow]

There is now a permanent underclass who no longer have manual skilled or unskilled work to do as such jobs don't exist any more. That isn't changing any time soon. Even relatively basic jobs are pretty skilled these days, my local charity shop won't 'employ' someone as a volunteer unless they are a graduate as they need to learn a large range of skills to do the job

And everybody else should be forced to labor on behalf of the indolent, lazy and wilfully uneducated why, exactly?

Because you have to live alongside them ?, its protection money and a damn good investment

I pay extortionists in copper-jacketed lead delivered at 3000 FPS, 168 grains at a time.

I pay my taxes, and the police come and arrest anyone trying extortion.
This is what normally happens in civilised countries.

[MrJonno]

I pay my taxes, and the police come and arrest anyone trying extortion

If someone tries to extort money from me I do a calculation on how likely they are to get away with, what are the consequences if I don't pay up etc what I don't do is think of the morality of it. It's the same as the welfare state , if it doesnt exist everyone is in trouble whether they use it or not, the rights or wrongs of it are irrelevant

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

I pay extortionists in copper-jacketed lead delivered at 3000 FPS, 168 grains at a time.

And so we see the consequences of excessive reading of Tom Clancy novels...