• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Minimum Wage should be a Living Wage

Status
Not open for further replies.

ExRes

Established Member
Joined
16 Dec 2012
Messages
8,375
Location
Back in Sussex
I personally think having kids is unethical for many reasons. Yes, I know the human race would die out. And so what?

Any chance you could expand on your 'unethical' comment, it would be interesting and enlightening to know why having children is not morally correct in your opinion

At least if the human race dies out then we in the UK would be on a level footing with the Netherlands for once :roll:
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
Any chance you could expand on your 'unethical' comment, it would be interesting and enlightening to know why having children is not morally correct in your opinion

When you have children, you are forcing someone into the world whether it wanted to born or not. The child could encounter great suffering and unhappiness while alive. There will certainly be pain, both physical and emotional, even in the most fortunate of lives. The unluckiest will experience unimaginable abuse and lifelong agony.

Ultimately, the child will die, which may in itself be unbearably painful. Current scientific knowledge assumes pain ends after death, but we don't know that for sure as no one has come back from the dead to tell us what it was like. For all we know, pain may continue forever. If Christians are correct, some people may end up in hell.

There is also environmental harm caused by humans to the planet.
 

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
Taking everyone from minimum wage to living wage can't be an overnight change, otherwise you either finish up with either:
1. Bringing people in low skilled roles on minimum wages up to the same level as people in skilled roles, which won't please the people in skilled roles.
2. Giving everyone a pay rise to prevent (1) happening which would be unaffordable.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,486
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
When you have children, you are forcing someone into the world whether it wanted to born or not. The child could encounter great suffering and unhappiness while alive. There will certainly be pain, both physical and emotional, even in the most fortunate of lives. The unluckiest will experience unimaginable abuse and lifelong agony.

Ultimately, the child will die, which may in itself be unbearably painful. Current scientific knowledge assumes pain ends after death, but we don't know that for sure as no one has come back from the dead to tell us what it was like. For all we know, pain may continue forever. If Christians are correct, some people may end up in hell.

There is also environmental harm caused by humans to the planet.

That's an incredibly sad and depressing line. More likely it will encounter great happiness and be of benefit to society?

Neil
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
That's an incredibly sad and depressing line. More likely it will encounter great happiness and be of benefit to society?

Life is a mixture of happiness, sadness and a range between the two. It is luck how much of each you end up with. There are a huge number of unlucky people who end up with great suffering. The counter argument put forward is usually that there is great happiness to make up for the sadness, but that doesn't apply to everyone, and I don't think it is fair that some people endure a miserable life just so that others can be happy. The safest thing is just to have no children.
 
Last edited:

ExRes

Established Member
Joined
16 Dec 2012
Messages
8,375
Location
Back in Sussex
When you have children, you are forcing someone into the world whether it wanted to born or not. The child could encounter great suffering and unhappiness while alive. There will certainly be pain, both physical and emotional, even in the most fortunate of lives. The unluckiest will experience unimaginable abuse and lifelong agony.

Ultimately, the child will die, which may in itself be unbearably painful. Current scientific knowledge assumes pain ends after death, but we don't know that for sure as no one has come back from the dead to tell us what it was like. For all we know, pain may continue forever. If Christians are correct, some people may end up in hell.

There is also environmental harm caused by humans to the planet.

Sorry, but I don't think I've ever seen a post anywhere on this forum as ridiculous as this one
 

Johnuk123

Established Member
Joined
19 Mar 2012
Messages
2,800
When you have children, you are forcing someone into the world whether it wanted to born or not. The child could encounter great suffering and unhappiness while alive. There will certainly be pain, both physical and emotional, even in the most fortunate of lives. The unluckiest will experience unimaginable abuse and lifelong agony.

Ultimately, the child will die, which may in itself be unbearably painful. Current scientific knowledge assumes pain ends after death, but we don't know that for sure as no one has come back from the dead to tell us what it was like. For all we know, pain may continue forever. If Christians are correct, some people may end up in hell.

There is also environmental harm caused by humans to the planet.


Have you been on the sherry ?
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
Which part of my post wasn't true? It may not be a truth people want to hear, especially people with kids.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
16,035
Location
St Albans
When you have children, you are forcing someone into the world whether it wanted to born or not. The child could encounter great suffering and unhappiness while alive. There will certainly be pain, both physical and emotional, even in the most fortunate of lives. The unluckiest will experience unimaginable abuse and lifelong agony.

Ultimately, the child will die, which may in itself be unbearably painful. Current scientific knowledge assumes pain ends after death, but we don't know that for sure as no one has come back from the dead to tell us what it was like. For all we know, pain may continue forever. If Christians are correct, some people may end up in hell.

There is also environmental harm caused by humans to the planet.

The maybe we should make the same humanitarian judgement on behalf of all animals and prevent them from reproducing as they are just the same as us and even without human interference in their lives, some of them have a pretty miserable existence. In fact the only kind way ahead is to destroy the Earth with all living creatures on it in one foul swoop. Oh, and make sure that we do the same for anybody stuck on the International Space Station by pushing the self destruct button just before we turn the lights out. Then you and everybody else won't have to suffer anymore. That does of course mean that those who have already 'made the trip to hell' will be stuck there without anybody new to talk to, but heigh ho, that's very sad and we have to start somewhere.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,100
Location
Redcar
I wouldn't bother engaging on this particular subject. It's been done before and you're not going to change their mind and attempting to is just a waste of keystrokes. They think that life is so awful that no-one should have to deal with it. That is the end of the issue as far as their concerned.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
17,593
Location
Isle of Man
Less teenage pregnancies because they are not getting pregnant in the first place is one thing. Less teenage pregnancies because they are getting pregnant and then becoming unpregnant due to intrusive medical intervention dosen't reflect well on anybody.

But the abortion rate is falling, as the link I quoted just said, so surely you should be celebrating?

I'm not sure what relevance the morning-after pill has to anything?
 

ralphchadkirk

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
5,754
Location
Essex
I wouldn't bother engaging on this particular subject. It's been done before and you're not going to change their mind and attempting to is just a waste of keystrokes. They think that life is so awful that no-one should have to deal with it. That is the end of the issue as far as their concerned.

But it's sunshine and lollipops in the Netherlands remember ;)
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
9,213
Location
SE London
When you have children, you are forcing someone into the world whether it wanted to born or not. The child could encounter great suffering and unhappiness while alive. There will certainly be pain, both physical and emotional, even in the most fortunate of lives. The unluckiest will experience unimaginable abuse and lifelong agony.

If you did a survey of people asking whether on balance, they (a) were glad that they were born, or that (b) they wished they hadn't been born, what do you think the reply would be?

(My guess is that outside the obvious conflict zones in the world, 'glad to have been born' will be well above 90%)
 

Seacook

Member
Joined
17 May 2010
Messages
456
Location
West Bromwich
If you did a survey of people asking whether on balance, they (a) were glad that they were born, or that (b) they wished they hadn't been born, what do you think the reply would be?

(My guess is that outside the obvious conflict zones in the world, 'glad to have been born' will be well above 90%)

Wouldn't you need to poll a group of people who were not born to provide a properly representative sample? There are some practical difficulties to be overcome there, of course.
 

Butts

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Jan 2011
Messages
11,827
Location
Stirlingshire
Taking everyone from minimum wage to living wage can't be an overnight change, otherwise you either finish up with either:
1. Bringing people in low skilled roles on minimum wages up to the same level as people in skilled roles, which won't please the people in skilled roles.
2. Giving everyone a pay rise to prevent (1) happening which would be unaffordable.

Can we get this thread back on track.....<D

According to The Office for National Statistics in April 2013 The Median Wage for Full Time Workers was £13.03 and £8.29 for Part Time Workers.

Therefore the £7.85 / £9.15 does not represent a real threat in my view.
 
Last edited:

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
9,213
Location
SE London
Wouldn't you need to poll a group of people who were not born to provide a properly representative sample? There are some practical difficulties to be overcome there, of course.

Nah. Someone who hasn't been born yet would logically have to answer 'I don't know' or 'N/A' to the question 'Are you glad that you were born?' Therefore, once you exclude the don't knows, then including people who haven't been born would make no difference to the outcome, so you don't need to ask them. :D
 

EM2

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
7,522
Location
The home of the concrete cow
An interesting contrast in stories on the Guardian website:

Number 1 - David Cameron warns that second global crash is looming
David Cameron has issued a stark message that “red warning lights are flashing on the dashboard of the global economy” in the same way as when the financial crash brought the world to its knees six years ago.

Writing in the Guardian at the close of the G20 summit in Brisbane, Cameron says there is now “a dangerous backdrop of instability and uncertainty” that presents a real risk to the UK recovery, adding that the eurozone slowdown is already having an impact on British exports and manufacturing.

His warning comes days after the Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, claimed a spectre of stagnation was haunting Europe. The International Monetary Fund managing director, Christine Lagarde, expressed fears in Brisbane that a diet of high debt, low growth and unemployment may yet become “the new normal in Europe”.

Cameron has adopted the more sombre tone in the runup to the chancellor’s autumn statement on 3 December, when the Office of Budget Responsibility will produce new growth forecasts and spell out the impact on public finances.

“The eurozone is teetering on the brink of a possible third recession, with high unemployment, falling growth and the real risk of falling prices too,” Cameron writes. “Emerging market economies which were the driver of growth in the early stages of the recovery are now slowing down. Despite the progress in Bali [trade talks in 2013], global trade talks have stalled while the epidemic of Ebola, conflict in the Middle East and Russia’s illegal actions in Ukraine are all adding a dangerous backdrop of instability and uncertainty.”

The emphasis on potential dangers, balancing some more hubristic ministerial accounts of the state of the UK economy, reflects Cameron’s concern – underlined by conversations at the G20 – about the extent to which Britain can detach itself from gathering economic storms.

Politically, Conservatives believe an emphasis on the risks still facing the UK will make anxious voters recoil from handing stewardship of a fragile economy to a relatively untried Labour team.

Some recent polling has seen the economy decline as an issue for voters, partly because there is a belief that the recovery is secured, leading to issues such as the health service and living standards, which have been seized upon by Labour, to rise in importance.

But with Germany, Europe’s manufacturing powerhouse, growing by just 0.1% in the third quarter, the eurozone economy appears to be faltering.

A European Central Bank (ECB) survey showed that inflation would remain at worryingly low levels before picking up slightly next year. The annual inflation rate in the eurozone was near a five-year low of 0.4% in October and the ECB expects a rate of 0.5% for 2014 – well below the target of close to 2%.

The EU may also be only one or two new rounds of sanctions away from pushing Russia into a deep recession as punishment for its interference in Ukraine, a point made in Brisbane by the Russian president, Vladimir Putin.

Cameron stresses that retreating from the world or imposing extra tax and borrowing may seem easy solutions but they would instead prove only to be a repeat of the mistakes of the past.

He claims that the G20 communique hammered out over the past few days endorsed Britain’s determination to use monetary policy to support growth and he would not waver on his policy of paying down government debt.

The summit, dogged by controversies over Ukraine, extra aid to fight Ebola and climate change, was hailed as “a weekend of achievement” by the Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott. He said the group of leading nations had managed to “shift a gear”, by moving from a responsive to a proactive stance on world events.

World leaders pledged 800 separate measures designed to lift their combined economic growth by an additional 2.1% above the current trajectory by 2018 compared with 2013 – a measure the IMF and OECD have calculated would add more than US$2tn (£1.3tn) and millions of jobs to the global economy.

Much of the growth would come from infrastructure investment and getting an extra 100 million women into the labour force.

None of the commitments are binding on national governments, so there is some scepticism that the Brisbane action plan will be able to have the transformative effect it promises, but Cameron said if the pledges were kept, it would mean “an extra Australia and New Zealand” added to the world economy. The G20 had credibility, he argued, since it had shown its effectiveness by pushing through reforms to achieve bank stability in the past.

He said the G20 had taken fresh steps to clamp down on corporate tax avoidance, pointing out that 92 tax authorities were now cooperating by sharing information which would enable G20 countries to raise an extra $32bn in tax revenues.

“This is not some arcane dry and dusty subject,” Cameron said at his closing press conference. “The more we can make sure big corporations pay their taxes properly, the less we have to tax hardworking people who I want to make sure can keep more of their own money so they can spend as they choose.”

But the TUC general secretary, Frances O’Grady, said: “Too many world leaders seem to think any jobs will do when they should be thinking about the security and quality of those jobs. The same story of casualisation, part-time work and insecurity in the labour market is spreading across the world.”

Chris Leslie, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said: “David Cameron claims his policies are working, but as even Sir John Major admits, most people still aren’t feeling the recovery.

“Working people are £1,600 a year worse off under his government, borrowing is going up so far this year and exports have fallen behind our competitors. David Cameron should be trying to strengthen growth and make sure working people finally benefit from it, not making excuses for slower growth.”
Now this suggests that it doesn't matter what policies you put in place in your own country, events outside of your control can conspire to cause problems.

Number 2 - Chancellor George Osborne must spend £25bn more on benefits, Labour claims
Chancellor George Osborne is having to spend £25bn more on welfare than he planned this parliament because of rising demand for housing and disability benefits, Labour claimed on Sunday.

Figures commissioned from the House of Commons library by Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor and Rachel Reeves, the shadow work and pensions secretary, suggest the bill for welfare is still predicted to go up significantly despite Conservative partyclaims to be saving money on benefits. Labour said a key cause of the higher than expected spending is that more people in work are having to rely on benefits because of low wages, as well as mismanaged reforms at the Department for Work and Pensions.

Their analysis of official figures suggests the government has overspent by £1.4bn on housing benefit for people in work, with the number of claimants increasing by more than 50% since 2010 and set to double by 2019.

The party also said the government has spent £8bn more than planned on incapacity benefits due to “chaotic delivery of reforms and failure to help disabled people into work”.

“George Osborne promised to balance the books in this parliament, but it’s now clear he will totally fail,” Balls and Reeves said, in an article for PoliticsHome. “This isn’t because George Osborne and Iain Duncan-Smith haven’t cut vital support for families. They’ve certainly done that. Over the last few years we’ve seen the unfair and cruel bedroom tax, cuts to tax credits for working families and even cuts to maternity pay. But savings from those decisions have been outweighed by their total failure to tackle the root causes of rising social security spending.”

The Guardian reported last week that the Treasury is already asking departments to draw up plans for an extra £25bn-£30bn in public spending cuts for the year after the next general election, amid lower tax take than expected and the fact that the deficit is rising again.

Separate reports suggest there are signficiant worries in the Treasury, given the state of the public finances, about the ability of a re-elected Conservative party to able to deliver billions of pounds in promised tax cuts in the second half of the next parliament.

Asked about the £25bn figure, a Conservative aide said: “The government’s long term economic plan is working, cutting the deficit by a third and creating jobs. The impact of Labour’s great recession is still being felt in the economy which is why we need to keep working through our plan. Labour just offer more spending, more borrowing and more debt.”
This story seems to blame the Chancellor's overspend on the previous administration, which was caught in a global crash, similar to that that we are warned about in the first story.

Now, if the events in the first story come to pass, who are we to blame?

I've put this here because it relates to the economy, welfare and possible further cuts, which would impact on the standard of living for many, as does the minimum wage being below the living wage.
 
Last edited:

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
35,435
Location
A typical commuter-belt part of north-west England
Ahh of course the old daily mail readers view of the world . Its all going down hill because people aren't brought up properly anymore and kids these days are out of control I tell you :roll:

Why do some people have an obsession with a certain newspaper called "The Daily Mail"?. Is it seen that if anyone has strong views on morality and decency that they are not capable of using their brain processes to come to such decisions with recourse to such a publication. I am equally convinced that other people from the other side of the political divide have exactly the same beliefs in morality and decency as I espouse, but there is no way that I would ever choose to attach a left-wing newspaper to them as the reason for their beliefs. The Human Race has reached a stage of evolution where personal decision making is now seen to be an acceptedly understood truth.

The most annoying connotation to your connection of The Daily Mail to me, as it is a newspaper that I feel does reflect a different viewpoint to our daily newspapers of The Financial Times, The Times and The Daily Telegraph.

Your stated view that parental responsibility appears not to have a place in their children's formative years in teaching right from wrong and the matter of "out of control" (to use your own phraseology) children is one that just seems to be an accepted fact of life makes me despair.
 

muz379

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2014
Messages
2,502
Why do some people have an obsession with a certain newspaper called "The Daily Mail"?. Is it seen that if anyone has strong views on morality and decency that they are not capable of using their brain processes to come to such decisions with recourse to such a publication. I am equally convinced that other people from the other side of the political divide have exactly the same beliefs in morality and decency as I espouse, but there is no way that I would ever choose to attach a left-wing newspaper to them as the reason for their beliefs. The Human Race has reached a stage of evolution where personal decision making is now seen to be an acceptedly understood truth.

The most annoying connotation to your connection of The Daily Mail to me, as it is a newspaper that I feel does reflect a different viewpoint to our daily newspapers of The Financial Times, The Times and The Daily Telegraph.

Your stated view that parental responsibility appears not to have a place in their children's formative years in teaching right from wrong and the matter of "out of control" (to use your own phraseology) children is one that just seems to be an accepted fact of life makes me despair.

So to summarize anyway , do you think that Moral values are at a much lower rate than they where when you where brought up ? .
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
35,435
Location
A typical commuter-belt part of north-west England
So to summarize anyway , do you think that Moral values are at a much lower rate than they where when you where brought up ? .

I will answer this by stating that there are far more accepted "freedoms" for the youth of today in fields of social media availability (as one example) that seem to entail no personal responsibility, etc, than there were when I was in my youth. It is the fault of the providers of such items, as they totally absolve themselves of any responsibility for the actions that may well ensure, cyber-bullying being an example never out of discussions, assuming that very young people have fully developed senses of what responsibility entails.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
17,593
Location
Isle of Man
Now this suggests that it doesn't matter what policies you put in place in your own country, events outside of your control can conspire to cause problems.

Funny how that wasn't what he was saying when it was Gordon Brown having the problems.

Now that it's Economics George- who's spent more in four years than what Brown spent in thirteen- having the problems suddenly the "global economic condition" is all that's wrong in the world.

Brown racked up the debt borrowing money to bail out the bankers. At least we can see what he spent the money on, even if he shouldn't have spent it. I genuinely can't see what Economics George has spent the money on.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I will answer this by stating that there are far more accepted "freedoms" for the youth of today in fields of social media availability (as one example) that seem to entail no personal responsibility, etc, than there were when I was in my youth.

It depends how you look at social media and, indeed, whether you consider it a freedom.

When I was young we went to the pub and called people- footballers, actors, whoever- ****s. There was no evidence of it kept for later, there wasn't somebody 100 miles away ready to get offended at every tasteless joke or comment. Now you do the same but it's on Twitter and suddenly you end up in prison because you made a tasteless joke about April Jones. Or you end up hanging yourself because you made a tasteless joke about Madeleine McCann and Sky News doorstepped you.

I'm not sure that's freedom.

Cyber-bullying isn't really any different to good old fashioned bullying, the only difference is that you can't leave the bullies at school. Kids bully, they always have and always will, and calling someone pizza face on Twitter isn't so different to pulling their hair in the playground. Teachers never stopped old fashioned bullying either.
 

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
You can still go to the pub now and do the same! There's a big difference between doing that and taking to Twitter, as you've pointed out, the latter can be seen by millions and is bound to attract the attention f others, which is highly unlikely if you're down the boozer.

I hear loads of things when I'm down the pub that I wouldn't like to see on social media. It's precisely because there isn't a massive audience that I don't immediately summon the police, even though a lot of conversations include harrassment, sexism, racism, ageism and threatening behaviour!
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
17,593
Location
Isle of Man
I think a lot of people see Facebook and Twitter as extensions of a chat with your mates though. Look at the recent anger about the Samaritans Radar app, with people on Twitter raging that their "privacy was being invaded". The app could only read public tweets. They thought they were talking amongst themselves and they weren't.
 

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
I think a lot of people see Facebook and Twitter as extensions of a chat with your mates though. Look at the recent anger about the Samaritans Radar app, with people on Twitter raging that their "privacy was being invaded". The app could only read public tweets. They thought they were talking amongst themselves and they weren't.

Exactly, that's what I think the fundamental problem is. It's more than a private chat, but it feels like it is!

The sooner people recognise that you can't say on Twitter or Facebook what you can say to your mates at home or in a bar, the better everyone will be!

A conversation is fleeting and transient, whereas a post is far more permanent It can be recorded and seen long after the event. Therefore far more care needs to be taken over what you type!
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
17,593
Location
Isle of Man
I think it's why you see so much "abuse" directed at TOCs too. Ten years ago, when your train was late due to yet another signalling failure, you muttered swearwords to yourself on the platform and sulked. Now you can vent on Twitter, hashtag useless, and it all looks so much worse. It isn't really.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top