PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING
Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.landlord bashing
Options
Comments
-
He was bang on the money. You just refused to understand what he was actually saying.Red-Squirrel wrote: »Hey I'm not the one who said they wanted them to change (I do, but I didn't say it) that was Guest101.
0 -
Who is to decide how people should best use their time? Maybe some LLs enjoy running their business, even if it doesn't earn them anything and they somehow believe that they will benefit in the future. Who is to tell them they are wrong to do so?
Benefit in the future? Do you mean financially benefit? In that case it is earning them something.Let's settle this like gentlemen: armed with heavy sticks
On a rotating plate, with spikes like Flash Gordon
And you're Peter Duncan; I gave you fair warning0 -
-
Perhaps I've not been clear- my fault.
I said I do not want failure rewarded. I do not want a system where success is meaningless because that's 'not fair' and those who don't achieve what the 'want' are bailed out.
If you want to be a teacher and educate young minds - that's good. You get the rewards of teaching - achieving your goal and you get paid for it.
If you simply want to earn money- you can choose to do that.
What you want is financial reward for work which is financially unviable.0 -
Perhaps I've not been clear- my fault.
I said I do not want failure rewarded. I do not want a system where success is meaningless because that's 'not fair' and those who don't achieve what the 'want' are bailed out.
If you want to be a teacher and educate young minds - that's good. You get the rewards of teaching - achieving your goal and you get paid for it.
If you simply want to earn money- you can choose to do that.
What you want is financial reward for work which is financially unviable.
Wait, so you're defining failure as not earning big bucks? How else is a teacher - or anyone similarly providing an essential societal contribution that is not well paid - a failure?
Do you not think that society sets itself up for problems if people like, say, teachers or elder care workers can't afford a basic standard of living? Talented people will choose other career paths. Which is great for the company who hires them but not so great for students or frail older adults. In the past, people have been willing to sacrifice much more lucrative opportunities to go into the "helping professions" because the non-monetary rewards compensated for making less money. But there's a difference between being paid less while still having a decent living standard, and living payday to payday or worse.
It's absurd that we as a society value -- as reflected by salary -- the folks in the City who make their money through magic tricks more than we value, say, teachers' aids. But, given that's not likely to change anytime soon, we're getting a bargain if we can use policy to make reduce housing costs such that some talented people decide the intrinsic reward of teaching young minds or whatever is enough to compensate for being paid less than in a corporate job.0 -
Benefit in the future? Do you mean financially benefit? In that case it is earning them something.
Call it what you want! That was my point, but Adrian's view was that only idiots invest in property for a potential benefit in the future if there is no immediate earning to be made.0 -
itchyfeet123 wrote: »Wait, so you're defining failure as not earning big bucks? How else is a teacher - or anyone similarly providing an essential societal contribution that is not well paid - a failure?no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying if your primary motivation to work is money, don't complain if you pick a vocation
Do you not think that society sets itself up for problems if people like, say, teachers or elder care workers can't afford a basic standard of living? 1: that depends on their individual circumstances. Which is exactly my point. If you have lots of debt - you are responsible for that. Teachers are paid a reasonable wage. Certainly enough to support oneself at a good level. 2: if you are in a position where you don't earn enough to support yourself - how is that my fault? Why should the law step in to protect your interest over mine- which is how this debate started Talented people will choose other career paths. Which is great for the company who hires them but not so great for students or frail older adults. In the past, people have been willing to sacrifice much more lucrative opportunities to go into the "helping professions" because the non-monetary rewards compensated for making less money. But there's a difference between being paid less while still having a decent living standard, and living payday to payday or worse.that is down to individual circumstances. There are literally millions of people earning less than teachers/nurses/careers/etc
It's absurd that we as a society value -- as reflected by salary -- the folks in the City who make their money through magic tricks more than we value, say, teachers' aids. i don't. I think teaching assistants so an amazing job. I just don't agree they should get the same wage. But, given that's not likely to change anytime soon, we're getting a bargain if we can use policy to make reduce housing costs such that some talented people decide the intrinsic reward of teaching young minds or whatever is enough to compensate for being paid less than in a corporate job.
No I don't want the state interfering in the sale of property. That would be market manipulation0 -
People seem to be thinking: making things fairer = punishing richer people and helping poorer people, or punishing hard work and rewarding not working hard.
It is perfectly possible to encourage success and profit and a strong economy AND make things fairer. The two are not mutually exclusive.0 -
People seem to be thinking: making things fairer = punishing richer people and helping poorer people, or punishing hard work and rewarding not working hard.
It is perfectly possible to encourage success and profit and a strong economy AND make things fairer. The two are not mutually exclusive.
That depends on your definition of 'fair'.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 248K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards