Of course it is not easy to move out of your comfort zone. It never is. However the excuses that people are giving here is symptomatic of what the welfare state has wrought. They prefer to subsist on the state staying at home watching sky TV while moaning about lack of jobs, transportation, low wages,etc rather than doing whatever it takes to lead a meaningful and productive life.
Just 150 years ago, our ancestors went throughout the world in search of their fortunes. For example, Jardine Matheson was founded by two scotsman who travelled to the Far East in search of their fortunes. William Jardine came from a very poor working class family. Today it is a 60 billion dollars conglomerate still trading from Hong Kong and listed on the London and Singapore exchanges. British History is replete with these stories of entrepreneurship, the Swire Group, Wheelock Marsden, HSBC, Hutchinson Whampoa, Jebsen&Co. All of which are now billion dollar companies and have thrived to this very day.
Entrepreneurs like these would never have succeeded in modern day Britain, the incentive to stay at home and moan about their circumstances is far greater. FFS, modern Brits don't even want to travel within a 50 miles radius of their homes in search of jobs.
Good post, am surprised you mentioned Jardines, not many people in the UK are aware of them, despite their size. There are lots of old UK trading companies that are still going, albeit in different forms: Inchape etc. And I agree with you completely... these companies worked all over the world, with no communication with home and a high risk of death. Can you imagine the average UK moaner today doing the same? Answer: not a chance
Of course it is not easy to move out of your comfort zone. It never is. However the excuses that people are giving here is symptomatic of what the welfare state has wrought. They prefer to subsist on the state staying at home watching sky TV while moaning about lack of jobs, transportation, low wages,etc rather than doing whatever it takes to lead a meaningful and productive life.
Just 150 years ago, our ancestors went throughout the world in search of their fortunes. For example, Jardine Matheson was founded by two scotsman who travelled to the Far East in search of their fortunes. William Jardine came from a very poor working class family. Today it is a 60 billion dollars conglomerate still trading from Hong Kong and listed on the London and Singapore exchanges. British History is replete with these stories of entrepreneurship, the Swire Group, Wheelock Marsden, HSBC, Hutchinson Whampoa, Jebsen&Co. All of which are now billion dollar companies and have thrived to this very day.
Entrepreneurs like these would never have succeeded in modern day Britain, the incentive to stay at home and moan about their circumstances is far greater. FFS, modern Brits don't even want to travel within a 50 miles radius of their homes in search of jobs.
Par for the course post from you.
Workers work for the benefit of the employer, so that the former can live and the latter make a profit.
And yet you make out the true wealth creators (the workers) are lazy if they don't want to travel miles to make someone else's fortune.
And yet you make out the true wealth creators (the workers) are lazy if they don't want to travel miles to make someone else's fortune.
I would say that someone who isn't prepared to travel a few miles to make a living for themselves is, yes, lazy. Do you really expect the government to provide £40,000 jobs within walking distance of everyone's home?
Yep. That's what makes the world go around. You make a living and the business makes a profit. Tax gets paid. Everyone's a winner.
I would say that someone who isn't prepared to travel a few miles to make a living for themselves is, yes, lazy. Do you really expect the government to provide £40,000 jobs within walking distance of everyone's home?
1. Unfortunately that "living" is very precarious for many, as it is punctuated by cyclical periods of unemployment and chronic low pay (the low paying companies' wages subsidised by benefits).
2. What I would like is to live under an economic system that is not based on chance, confidence and the whims of employers as to whether a person gets a job or not.
Why don't you ask employers to travel to where that labour is?
That does happen. One of the reasons that Nissan opened in Sunderland was a good availability of experienced manufacturing labour. A lot of call centres have opened in areas of high unemployment, such as South Wales, as there is a ready supply of young unskilled people.
2. What I would like is to live under an economic system that is not based on chance, confidence and the whims of employers as to whether a person gets a job or not.
Good luck with that. Meanwhile in the real world...
So they should sit on welfare waiting for the jobs to come to them?
Hmm.........
People = demand for goods and services. Those demands can be met locally or remotely and shipped in. The former leads to a fairer wealth distribution, the latter leads to greater profits for a remote minority and little long-term gain for the community.
The latter also shares similarities to how native Americans were treated. Trade with them for goods that they can't produce themselves and make them dependent on you. You then have them at a disadvantage and can exploit them to your hearts content.
That does happen. One of the reasons that Nissan opened in Sunderland was a good availability of experienced manufacturing labour. A lot of call centres have opened in areas of high unemployment, such as South Wales, as there is a ready supply of young unskilled people.
Good luck with that. Meanwhile in the real world...
No, it is the Capitalist world.
Such a world is not the end of societal evolution, as much as "they" would have you believe,
That does happen. One of the reasons that Nissan opened in Sunderland was a good availability of experienced manufacturing labour. A lot of call centres have opened in areas of high unemployment, such as South Wales, as there is a ready supply of young unskilled people.
Good luck with that. Meanwhile in the real world...
1. Unfortunately that "living" is very precarious for many, as it is punctuated by cyclical periods of unemployment and chronic low pay (the low paying companies' wages subsidised by benefits).
2. What I would like is to live under an economic system that is not based on chance, confidence and the whims of employers as to whether a person gets a job or not.
One of my colleagues just returned from a visit to a high tech German company.
It used to be in former East Germany and at that time it employed 1800 people. It now employs 55 people with no loss of output.
That is the reality of the socialist system, just because people have a job does not mean they have a job.
Is it a quote from a dystopian novel I'm not familiar with?
Gone are the days where car plants employ tens of thousands of workers. They are run by machines now, a new car plant will only need a few tens to hundreds of workers to oil the machines.
Machines don't go on strike, demand minimum wages need holidays or social care.
For those jobs that need some labour, we can get the chinese to do it, they don;t need minimum wages either.
You have effectively made yourselves redundant with your demands, well done you, give yourselves a round of applause.
Don't you think it more important for 1800 people to be in work than 1745 redundant and supported by the state?
There is no difference if the 1745 are not adding any productivity to the company. They are being supported by the government, only this way they are trapped and bored and have their ambitions stiffled by being placed at a company which has no use of them.
Comments
Good post, am surprised you mentioned Jardines, not many people in the UK are aware of them, despite their size. There are lots of old UK trading companies that are still going, albeit in different forms: Inchape etc. And I agree with you completely... these companies worked all over the world, with no communication with home and a high risk of death. Can you imagine the average UK moaner today doing the same? Answer: not a chance
Par for the course post from you.
Workers work for the benefit of the employer, so that the former can live and the latter make a profit.
And yet you make out the true wealth creators (the workers) are lazy if they don't want to travel miles to make someone else's fortune.
H'mm........
So they should sit on welfare waiting for the jobs to come to them?
Hmm.........
Yep. That's what makes the world go around. You make a living and the business makes a profit. Tax gets paid. Everyone's a winner.
I would say that someone who isn't prepared to travel a few miles to make a living for themselves is, yes, lazy. Do you really expect the government to provide £40,000 jobs within walking distance of everyone's home?
It just shows the redundancy of the system if there is a pool of labour in a given area and no jobs.
Why don't you ask employers to travel to where that labour is?
1. Unfortunately that "living" is very precarious for many, as it is punctuated by cyclical periods of unemployment and chronic low pay (the low paying companies' wages subsidised by benefits).
2. What I would like is to live under an economic system that is not based on chance, confidence and the whims of employers as to whether a person gets a job or not.
That does happen. One of the reasons that Nissan opened in Sunderland was a good availability of experienced manufacturing labour. A lot of call centres have opened in areas of high unemployment, such as South Wales, as there is a ready supply of young unskilled people.
Good luck with that. Meanwhile in the real world...
People = demand for goods and services. Those demands can be met locally or remotely and shipped in. The former leads to a fairer wealth distribution, the latter leads to greater profits for a remote minority and little long-term gain for the community.
The latter also shares similarities to how native Americans were treated. Trade with them for goods that they can't produce themselves and make them dependent on you. You then have them at a disadvantage and can exploit them to your hearts content.
No, it is the Capitalist world.
Such a world is not the end of societal evolution, as much as "they" would have you believe,
nothing to with Nissan being given 80 million pounds by the government then.http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&ved=0CHkQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thisismoney.co.uk%2Fmoney%2Fnews%2Farticle-2230999%2FNissan-sells-UK-cars-Switzerland-tax-ruse.html&ei=SFa_UdDnD_Ts0gXRkoDwCg&usg=AFQjCNEAqiV9WCHEsB3Db5KqjzXGN7822A&sig2=ucO9zRM2i_YbCKXnrgDu_Q
No need with Benefits so Lucrative :cool:
They prefer to be where the customers are.
Try moving there and getting a work permit before you start calling people lazy.
that's smart thinking
Has she got work lined up for them and trains waiting to ship them off?
One of my colleagues just returned from a visit to a high tech German company.
It used to be in former East Germany and at that time it employed 1800 people. It now employs 55 people with no loss of output.
That is the reality of the socialist system, just because people have a job does not mean they have a job.
It's smarter thinking than not moving and expecting the situation to change as if by magic. The mountain didn't come to Mohammed.
And if your unemployed most could not afford to move,
Utterly delicious. Post of the day.
Can you not see what you have written here?
Yes, socialism is inefficient.
What of the Capitalist system creating unemployment?
Don't you think it more important for 1800 people to be in work than 1745 redundant and supported by the state?
Anyway, your example looks rather suspect to me.
There is not going to be any more work for unskilled labour.
We, as designers, are designing labour out of all our products as best we can.
We just don't need you.
At this point, the population needs to be controlled and redesigned to meet the new reality.
I'm sorry, I don't understand this.
Is it a quote from a dystopian novel I'm not familiar with?
Gone are the days where car plants employ tens of thousands of workers. They are run by machines now, a new car plant will only need a few tens to hundreds of workers to oil the machines.
Machines don't go on strike, demand minimum wages need holidays or social care.
For those jobs that need some labour, we can get the chinese to do it, they don;t need minimum wages either.
You have effectively made yourselves redundant with your demands, well done you, give yourselves a round of applause.
There is no difference if the 1745 are not adding any productivity to the company. They are being supported by the government, only this way they are trapped and bored and have their ambitions stiffled by being placed at a company which has no use of them.