i worked out that the site i was working on lost approx £60000 in wages as an abosolute minimum from having an enforced day off for royal inbreds wedding.

I, along with many, were pissed off. But obviously so many self employed people having a day off is ok and the royals make money for economy. Yeah nice one Daily Fail/

(November 22, 2011 at 4:10 pm)Tiberius Wrote: See, this is why the private sector is better. The solution isn't to strike; you are striking against a government which has a massive amount of debt, and is thus unable to do anything about your demands. The solution is to get rid of the public sector (as much as possible), and move all the jobs to the private sector, where companies actually know how to run themselves.

Yes, because America is doing such a great job now that we are doing that.

Wait...what? We are even worse off than most other countries because of that.

Not suprised one bit that a right lib comes out in opposition to labor striking.

Just imagine, we can put all of the govt run benefits in the hands of the private sector. then they can bet like a dog with it and REALLY fuck it up, since none of uss will have a say so in how the rich bastards play games with our money.

Profits will be privatised, losses will be socialised.

Sure, I know very well that companies ALWAYS run things better..America is the best example.

Want your economy to mimic America? Then follow the advice above.

Want your country to actually succede? Stop competitive business practices and start a syndicate of cooperative goals.

However, I think I've spoken with a few british people in krautchan's /int/, and they were generally not very okay with this general strike. They say that the public workers are not working enough to earn so many privilages.
However losing earned privilages brings out a dilemma for the people who enjoyed it.

(November 22, 2011 at 7:16 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Savings. Instead of putting money away into a pension which you cannot touch until you reach retirement age (whenever that will be, it changes as the government realises they can't afford to pay us our pensions), you put money into a savings account. The big difference is, you have complete control over your savings; if you suddenly need to dip into them for an emergency, you can.

LMFAO!!!!



If we in america followed your advice 20 years ago, then we would have handed our retirement plans to the private companies.

This would have eliminated ALL of our retirement once the economy went belly up.

then, when you lose your job, all of those "retirement savings" you would have in your account would have been dpleted merely trying to survive.

In the name of right wing politics, you advocate the death and destitution of many millions of families and children in the name of the naive concept of "private companies are smarter".

---

(November 22, 2011 at 7:45 pm)edk141 Wrote:

(November 22, 2011 at 7:35 pm)bozo Wrote: So instead of the employer adding more contribution to what the employee puts in to a pension plan, you prefer to go it alone with savings?
How are you going to live reasonably and put away the vast amount you will need to accumulate a sum that will give you a reasonable standard of living in retirement?

To be fair if everyone did this the company would not have to put money into pension schemes so would have more to pay you anyway.

but you and I both know that they would merely pocket this extra money, instead of paying you more.

(November 26, 2011 at 4:18 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: However, I think I've spoken with a few british people in krautchan's /int/, and they were generally not very okay with this general strike. They say that the public workers are not working enough to earn so many privilages.
However losing earned privilages brings out a dilemma for the people who enjoyed it.

The people you have been speaking too are idiots.
They probably work in the private sector, if lucky enough to have a job. They probably have either no pension or a very poor one.
They are jealous of the fact that the public sector has a reasonable pension, not a privilege. A pension that, over the years, has compensated for salaries in the public sector lagging behind the private. However, we are now in recession and those wonderful private employers that Hayter so admires, have slash and burned their own employees' pensions.
Rather than being against the strike, the people you have been listening to should actually be supporting it...and fighting themselves for a better pension.
There is an old saying, all of us are in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
Tell them that when you next contact them.

(November 26, 2011 at 4:18 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: However, I think I've spoken with a few british people in krautchan's /int/, and they were generally not very okay with this general strike.

because many are single minded selfish douches who do not have the first clue about the public sector and probably think they earn big bucks because the Telegraph or Mail ahs had stories about top PS chiefs earning 200k, so those retards think everyone else does. Most people are against it because it probably means they will be late for work or theye'll have to look after their kids for the day, like i will, so fucking what, 1 day with my eldest kid or let millions get fucked by a government that instantly lowered taxes companies, let off multinationals from paying tax bills, despite them already having the money ready and stopping the banker bonus tax. But great lets fuck real people and let logos and numbers keep their money. Fuck real, existing things.

They say that the public workers are not working enough to earn so many privilages.
However losing earned privilages brings out a dilemma for the people who enjoyed it.

They are wrong, they take less pay then private sector and in return get good benefits. You'll meet exactly zero school teachers with and Aston Martin or a Ferrari, i know several recruitment consultants with them and their job is fucking pointless.

I know i keep banging on about teachers but i know a few and they have far less than me, the only way they do better is via pensions. And all of them are far better educated them me.

(November 26, 2011 at 1:45 pm)bozo Wrote:

(November 26, 2011 at 9:39 am)Tiberius Wrote: That's bozo for you. He misplaced his sense of humour decades ago.

Fuck you, arsehole.

My dear bozo, I've simply lost count of all the times you've got pissed off because someone said something that was clearly a joke, but was completely 100% "politically incorrect". You can act like a social progressive all you like, but you've shown your true colours time and time again; as a authoritarian jerk who thinks it's ok for governments to dictate how people think.

(November 26, 2011 at 4:20 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: If we in america followed your advice 20 years ago, then we would have handed our retirement plans to the private companies.

As opposed to...now, when pensions are also handled by private companies? I'm not sure how it works in your country, so I can only speak for mine, but the context of my statement was based around pensions in the private sector, where I work. Pensions here are handled by the private sector banks. There is literally no difference between having a private pension, and a private savings account, other than the fact that you can access your money in a savings account any time you want. With a pension, you sacrifice the ownership of the money you put into it, in exchange for some relatively minor benefits you get in 40 years time...

Quote:This would have eliminated ALL of our retirement once the economy went belly up.

Same with private pensions.

Quote:then, when you lose your job, all of those "retirement savings" you would have in your account would have been dpleted merely trying to survive.

Again...same with private pensions.

Quote:In the name of right wing politics, you advocate the death and destitution of many millions of families and children in the name of the naive concept of "private companies are smarter".

Let me make myself clear; I in no way suggested that everyone should do this, or be forced to do it. I'm commenting on my personal choice, nothing more. So please retract your statement that I'm advocating the "death and destitution" of children. Not only is it wrong, it's downright insulting, and a savage reminder of a time not so long ago when you compared myself and theVOID to nazis. I thought that was all behind us now, or should I have been less forgiving?

(November 26, 2011 at 6:22 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(November 26, 2011 at 1:45 pm)bozo Wrote:

(November 26, 2011 at 9:39 am)Tiberius Wrote: That's bozo for you. He misplaced his sense of humour decades ago.

Fuck you, arsehole.

My dear bozo, I've simply lost count of all the times you've got pissed off because someone said something that was clearly a joke, but was completely 100% "politically incorrect". You can act like a social progressive all you like, but you've shown your true colours time and time again; as a authoritarian jerk who thinks it's ok for governments to dictate how people think.

(November 26, 2011 at 4:20 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: If we in america followed your advice 20 years ago, then we would have handed our retirement plans to the private companies.

As opposed to...now, when pensions are also handled by private companies? I'm not sure how it works in your country, so I can only speak for mine, but the context of my statement was based around pensions in the private sector, where I work. Pensions here are handled by the private sector banks. There is literally no difference between having a private pension, and a private savings account, other than the fact that you can access your money in a savings account any time you want. With a pension, you sacrifice the ownership of the money you put into it, in exchange for some relatively minor benefits you get in 40 years time...

Quote:This would have eliminated ALL of our retirement once the economy went belly up.

Same with private pensions.

Quote:then, when you lose your job, all of those "retirement savings" you would have in your account would have been dpleted merely trying to survive.

Again...same with private pensions.

Quote:In the name of right wing politics, you advocate the death and destitution of many millions of families and children in the name of the naive concept of "private companies are smarter".

Let me make myself clear; I in no way suggested that everyone should do this, or be forced to do it. I'm commenting on my personal choice, nothing more. So please retract your statement that I'm advocating the "death and destitution" of children. Not only is it wrong, it's downright insulting, and a savage reminder of a time not so long ago when you compared myself and theVOID to nazis. I thought that was all behind us now, or should I have been less forgiving?

OK arsehole, what is funny to one may not be to another. My sense of humour, at my age, will be vastly different to a youngster like you. That said, I have responded to this example and I 'm not going any further with it. It has nothing to do with being pissed off, just not sharing in the poster's idea of a joke.
I'm not " socially progressive " ...they are your words and worth fuck all to me. I'm a Socialist..I repeat cause you're a bit slow, a Socialist.
Now get your arse out on Wednesday in support of the strike, you tosser!

C'mon, no need for name calling please.

(November 26, 2011 at 6:39 pm)5thHorseman Wrote: C'mon, no need for name calling please.

every need in this particular case.