What next?

[santa claus]

As a hypothetical.................would have supported me, if I'd wiped 40% from your diversified pension? (ie all your growth equities?)

You propose a criminal act to achieve your hypothetical aim so no I wouldn't support you. I would support you if you walked out because you are underpaid or overworked or undervalued but you're not. You're simply envious of others who get more than you. You're a very greedy boy.

Meanwhile, it is more than likely that a tube driver uses his £40k to feed and clothe a family, keep them warm, pay the mortgage etc (and in London). They are not overpaid; the majority of working people are underpaid. To redress that balance, I support their getting together in a Union and making it happen. Roll on the strikes if they're necessary and sod Cable's threats.

If anyone goes to jail, Ken Clarke will halve their sentence anyway. Bloody shambles.

[TheAnimus]

You propose a criminal act to achieve your hypothetical aim so no I wouldn't support you. I would support you if you walked out because you are underpaid or overworked or undervalued but you're not. You're simply envious of others who get more than you. You're a very greedy boy.

Erm its not a criminal act. Back at that hypothetical roll I was chornically understaffed and overworked. I had tranees who were gifted but not experianced enough yet. I regularly had to manually clean stuff in a DB that should be automated hypothetically, and code up quick little fixes to filter out certain bits of noise. Hypothetically in such an environment even on compassionate leave I would have set up a mini remote working office, and taken just one day off work completely in 18 months..... Hypothetically speaking. Absolutely nothing criminal about it in this hypothetical.

So given that I was underpaid, compared to others doing the same role, why are you some how saying I'd be envious of others who got more, but the tube drivers are what? Who earns more than a tube driver in transport? The closest I can think of is a pilot who has spent only £50k training and at least 3-4 years on top of a degree training and building hours before he would earn as much, then to get more have to do anti-social hours. Not to mention opening and closing the doors is a bit easier than flying a plane (well unless your an airfrance pilot, they just pull up).

I'd love to hear the rational that someone who is earning more than the median, but the top of their sector is underpaid. Yet someone else earning more than the median, but the bottom of their sector is just greedy.

(also there is no way I'd detail any specifics about companies I work for past and present, but I have previously done 100 hour weeks in mentally demanding roles, so its not hard for me to create this hypothetical. I also quit working that hard, hopefully for good.)

[SeriousSam]

And I hope it isn't posturing: price rises for food, power, fuel...

Have you ever considered the fact that price rises for food, energy and fuel are just as much OUR fault as anyone else’s? We are the ones that over consume them and then cry wolf when they become more expensive due to issues with production capability and availability. Still as most people have no clue about the true worth of things it’s hardly surprising. Too content to be zombies in a world dominated by the negative aspects of our animal ancestry.

At this rate we'll be lucky to see the end of this century in any fit shape let alone the end of the millennia...

[scaryjim]

I think what rattles my cage most with the tube drivers is that they have a disproportionately high impact.

I struck when I worked as a Benefits adminstrator, because I was being offered a pay settlement that was not just below the RPI, but was only half of the increase being given to people on benefits (one of the advantages - if you can see it that way - of working in benefits is you get to know exactly how much everyone else is getting!). But as a benefits assessor, the impact of our walk out was that a few housing benefit claimants had to wait an extra week to get their first benefit cheque. Hardly country-shaking stuff.

The tube drivers, on the other hand, cripple London. The main client for my current employer is an NHS department, and on tube strike days my office goes deathly quiet because none of them can get to work. When the tube drivers strike, it affects people throughout the country. That's a pretty phenomenally big stick to have on their side, and they wave it with far too much abandon for my liking. Yes, they're doing an important job, but I'm sure there's plenty of people who would happily do the same job, at the current terms and conditions, and think they were getting a damn good deal. Tube drivers are *not* being exploited, they are using their influential positions to hold their employers, and the rest of London, to ransom. The fact that they are hiding behind unionisation to legitimise their position doesn't make it any less deplorable, and it devalues the good works unions can do in industries where there *are* issues with employment conditions by giving unionism a bad name.

Tube drivers knew the wages, terms and conditions of their contracts when they signed them: they need to realise that if those wages and conditions were good enough to persuade them into the job, they should think long and hard about what's changed since then...

[TheAnimus]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I always used to try and remember that, now I think I've switched to a cynical point of view so strong I no longer need too.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/27/news...irger.fortune/

You say futures are making people speculate and therefore get a bubble effect driving up the prices, food should be for eating not financial speculation, you ban futures trading..... And well vol rises, oh dear.

The thing is I get tired of people who are, well I'll just say it, ignorant, unable to form simple mathematical premise or models telling everyone else that your greedy, or evil, or living your life in a way they don't think is good. Meanwhile they can be as much of a hypocrite as they want because their heart is somehow better than yours. I told myself I shouldn't ever bother replying to one of santa's posts ever again after his shockingly ill informed posts about pensions (more specifically tax payer funded final year salary pensions schemes and how much they cost) because ultimately he is speaking without any idea of the numbers involved, or the mechanics behind it.

[Saracen]

Careful, Animus. You're walking very close to one of our rules with that last post, and I do not want to see this descend into a slanging match.

[santa claus]

Erm its not a criminal act.

I could cripple about $2BN of pension money with a few keystrokes. No one would be able to understand what I'd done without days of forensic effort by VERY gifted programmers. In that time millions of options would have expired. That would be the average joe's pensions.

That sounds like a hypothetical criminal act to me.

At this rate we'll be lucky to see the end of this century in any fit shape let alone the end of the millennia...

But the beauty of it is that we'll all be in the same boat. Then we'll get to see who is worth what in real terms.

......they should think long and hard about what's changed since then...

But they are. And securing their future along with that of The Boss is only fair.

The thing is I get tired of people who are, well I'll just say it, ignorant, unable to form simple mathematical premise or models telling everyone else that your greedy, or evil, or living your life in a way they don't think is good. Meanwhile they can be as much of a hypocrite as they want because their heart is somehow better than yours. I told myself I shouldn't ever bother replying to one of santa's posts ever again after his shockingly ill informed posts about pensions (more specifically tax payer funded final year salary pensions schemes and how much they cost) because ultimately he is speaking without any idea of the numbers involved, or the mechanics behind it.

Now, now, if you can't cope with a debate without being insulting, just say so. You sound despondent; I'll try to be nicer to you so you don't resort to thumb sucking ?

Careful, Animus. You're walking very close to one of our rules with that last post, and I do not not want to see this descend into a slanging match.

Quite right. Adults should be able to debate without having the scweaming abdabs.

[SeriousSam]

Now, now, if you can't cope with a debate without being insulting, just say so. You sound despondent; I'll try to be nicer to you so you don't resort to thumb sucking ?

Quite right. Adults should be able to debate without having the scweaming abdabs.

The problem is that delusional self righteous emotivists cannot engage in logical discussions by the very fact that all their postulates are based on feelings rather than reasoning. This tends to get on the nerves of people who actually do know something about a subject and try to explore the bounds of an issue in an intelligent manner. Then if you try and counter engage them with emotive language then they get aggressively defensive, cry foul or "ist" and still fail to see the ultimate point... the world that they see is forged in the illusions of their own subconscious and about as real as any other figment of their imagination.

[santa claus]

The problem is that delusional self righteous emotivists cannot engage in logical discussions by the very fact that all their postulates are based on feelings rather than reasoning. This tends to get on the nerves of people who actually do know something about a subject and try to explore the bounds of an issue in an intelligent manner. Then if you try and counter engage them with emotive language then they get aggressively defensive, cry foul or "ist" and still fail to see the ultimate point... the world that they see is forged in the illusions of their own subconscious and about as real as any other figment of their imagination.

I know what you mean. He gets so carried away doesn't he?

[SeriousSam]

I know what you mean. He gets so carried away doesn't he?

quod erat demonstrandum

[MadduckUK]

Careful, Animus. You're walking very close to one of our rules with that last post, and I do not not want to see this descend into a slanging match.

Double negative! let the slang commence! apples and pears!

[TheAnimus]

Careful, Animus. You're walking very close to one of our rules with that last post, and I do not not want to see this descend into a slanging match.

It was designed to be on the acceptable side of the rule as much as possible, I guess I'm asking is the message somehow not acceptable?

Some people believe that anyone who doesn't think they way they do is an evil, heartless, money grabber. They assume that because they care more, they are entitled to be as rude as they wish.

You're simply envious of others who get more than you. You're a very greedy boy.

Now I would suggest that ignorance is a state, one that is much easier to demonstrate and test than say greed. As such I don't have an issue saying someone is ignorant with their views when they show a lack of understanding of the subject matter.

It was not my intention to break the rules by making personal attacks, more on the point that I dislike the idea its OK to critique someones views on a matter as somehow heartless or 'against the workers' or whatever the propaganda is, whilst visibly demonstrating a lack of understanding of the mechanics of the matter.

A prime example would be defending final year salary pensions, without any understanding of the cost of these. If you don't have ANY concept of that, and are debating the issues surrounding it, your quite simply ignorant. That is not an insult any more than someone noting I've retarded issues forming sentances/paragraphs and spelling. Its just how it is.

[santa claus]

I seem to have touched a nerve but does that give you the right to put words into my mouth? When have I ever referred to you as an evil, heartless, money grabber? Please don't impose your self perceptions upon me.

And because our views on pensions are different, doesn't make me wrong and you right or vice versa. It won't make any difference how long you keep stamping your feet on the subject either.

As a recently qualified pilot might I suggest that you try to keep your feet on the ground when your nose is in the air ?

[TheAnimus]

That post wasn't all about you! All of those phrases have been used by people who've posted in this board directly at someone who they perceive as right wing.

Also I'm not saying I'm right or optimal, just that I can't stand the fact it is seemingly OK to say that I'm greedy by looking at what someone else doing the job would be earning. No that is from determining the worth supply and demand, mark to market and all that. To simply label that as greed ignores the process and thoeries behind it, that is a form of ignorance. By ALL means critisise the issues with those concepts, they are afterall not perfect.

But don't just fall back to this idea its OK to somehow label someone as selfish without understanding the mechanics of their theories.

[santa claus]

That post wasn't all about you!

In which case I apologise. You quoted me though so I think the assumption was reasonable.

[Saracen]

Double negative! let the slang commence! apples and pears!

If the slang were to commence after that, you would be among those getting a suspension.

Trying to prevent a thread descending into a flame war is not an area where that type of comment is appreciated, especially from someone that has not previously posted in this thread.

I see it as simply an attempt to stir, YET AGAIN, and I will not put up with it. Drop it, or the suspension will come with NO further warning.