Stop Bloody Moaning!!!

Graham_Devon

James_B. wrote: »

I don't really understand what sort of person can sit there with their income in the top 10% worldwide, and yest still feel that life is unfair.

To compare income levels worldwide is utterly pointless.

We don't spend our income worldwide, we buy in the UK at UK prices.

Yes, we are lucky compared to many people all over the world. That argument will just about trump any moan anyone in the UK has.

That does not mean that just because we are better off than someone in say, Syria, we should be happy with everything that goes on in our country and never have a bad word to say about anything.

The way that the country is going is displeasing to a growing group of people. Suggesting that we are still better off than others at a time of large growth in inequality in our own country is very much a strawman argument. It's an argument of emotion that simply makes out anyone who doesn't agree doesn't realise how lucky they are. In other words, it's nonsense.

We are lucky. It doesn't mean we should be content with everything that's happening around us.

Edit: and having just looked at some of your recent posts, it's of no surprise you have this viewpoint, seemingly a very priveleged person youself. Easier to say this stuff when you aren't waiting for payday to eat.

Thrugelmir

wotsthat wrote: »

Shows how petulant people can be when, despite being feather-bedded from cradle to grave, they occasionally have to put up with a pea beneath the mattress.

That's a broad statement. Peoples circumstances differ. Inequality has never been wider. If there was a safety net for everyone then there would no need for foodbanks nor homeless shelters.

danothy

Graham_Devon wrote: »

To compare income levels worldwide is utterly pointless.

We don't spend our income worldwide, we buy in the UK at UK prices.

And we buy to UK standards of living. An income that would support this standard of living anywhere in the world is high by any measure. The comparison therefore seems to stand.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The way that the country is going is displeasing to a growing group of people. Suggesting that we are still better off than others at a time of large growth in inequality in our own country is very much a strawman argument. It's an argument of emotion that simply makes out anyone who doesn't agree doesn't realise how lucky they are. In other words, it's nonsense.

So to criticise those who complain about fluctuations in our luxury by juxtaposing it against the context of starvation in the world is nonsense? Because that fluctuation in luxury is the thing that you are referring to when you say "the way the country is going is displeasing". You need to get a sense of proportion. To complain the way you do about marginal declines in our luxurious living standard is petty to the point it sickens me.

Jason74

wymondham wrote: »

I think its more to do with yes we've got all of the above, but we'd also like to keep it, and it looks like its slipping away?

I think that this is very accurate. There is no doubt that in pretty much every conceivable respect, to be born in and live in the UK is to be in a better position than most countries in the world. We should be glad of that fact, and when discussing the things in our country that could still be better, a sense of perspective of the fact that they are (in relative global terms) already very good is required.

However, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t problems. Social mobility (one of the key indicators of a successful society imho) has been declining for the last 40 years or so, and the UK is actually unique in the G8 in that inequality has risen this century. Based on the plans of the current Government, that trend is likely to continue, and I question how much longer we can “continue to cut public spending year on year without any civil disorder to speak of” . Certainly the deficit reduction has hit the poor hardest, a fact that a Government Adviser (Lord Finkelstein) recently publicly acknowledged.

The low unemployment rate also hides a shift in the nature of employment for many on lower incomes. And in the housing market, developments over the past 20 years or so make it harder than it’s ever been for people to build security through the route of home ownership, while stable housing options for those priced out are more limited than at any time in the past 40 years.

Speaking out about the above isn’t “bloody moaning”, its acknowledging the issues that we face as a society. Yes, this country remains one of the best in the world. But, some of the things that make it so seem to be being chipped away at the moment, and that article (while 100% true in and of itself) glosses over that very important issue.

Thrugelmir

Jason74 wrote: »

the UK is actually unique in the G8 in that inequality has risen this century.

USA is far worse than the UK in terms of equality.

Graham_Devon

danothy wrote: »

So to criticise those who complain about fluctuations in our luxury by juxtaposing it against the context of starvation in the world is nonsense? Because that fluctuation in luxury is the thing that you are referring to when you say "the way the country is going is displeasing". You need to get a sense of proportion. To complain the way you do about marginal declines in our luxurious living standard is petty to the point it sickens me.

There are many in this country who cannot eat a square meal every day. Who cannot afford to buy shoes for their children. etc etc. The overarching point being that the numbers are growing.

If you are at that end of the scale, and watching equality widen even further, it's much harder to be blase about your "luxury" of eating as and when you can becoming even more of an issue.

As for your "you sicken me" nonsense.....give it a break.

Graham_Devon

Jason74 wrote: »

Speaking out about the above isn’t “bloody moaning”, its acknowledging the issues that we face as a society. Yes, this country remains one of the best in the world. But, some of the things that make it so seem to be being chipped away at the moment, and that article (while 100% true in and of itself) glosses over that very important issue.

Nail hit head.

This thread somewhat reminds me of what was saidin Hong Kong by those in charge. "We can't let democracy happen as then the poor will have a say in running the country".

danothy

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As for your "you sicken me" nonsense.....give it a break.

You do sicken me. You sicken me to such a degree that I am done listening to your toxic slander and rhetoric.

TrustyOven

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Edit: and having just looked at some of your recent posts, it's of no surprise you have this viewpoint, seemingly a very priveleged person youself. Easier to say this stuff when you aren't waiting for payday to eat.

I don't get this. Why do you have to use payday loans to eat?

Why do some of us (who are not priveledged, or came from very poor backgrounds) manage to eat without payday loans?

Why do some of us not manage to live on our wages/salary and need payday loans and foodbanks and cannot afford to buy shoes for their kids?

Is this a case of Lifestyle Inflation, fault of the government, fault of the education system for not teaching economics / basic finances, or what?

I thought the national average income was about £25k. Isn't that enough to not have to use payday loans?

If someone earns less than that, and are not happy about it, shouldn't they search for a better job / career / opportunity rather than moaning and turning to nationalist (extremist?) groups like UKIP / BNP / EDL and the likes?

I thought that's the way things work. Maybe I lead a sheltered life. Maybe someone could enlighten me.

michaels

chewmylegoff wrote: »

That has happened throughout the ages, older people always hark back to how much better things were when they were younger; personally I prefer not being bound by Victorian values, culture and attitudes, for instance. Some people call it progress, other people call it the country going to the dogs...

This sounds like the 'London' view but those who live in the Lndon progressive bubble which includes most of the media end up 'group thinking' that the whole country is a similar melting pot of tollerance where we benefit from exposure to multiple cultures.

The problem is that this progressive view also decrees that holding other views is simply incorrect and 'backwards' and by vilifying those who would represent other views (sure the BNP is obnoxious but so is preventing poeple having opinions you do not like). for example political correctness in itself stiffles freedom of thought and speech.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

That's a broad statement. Peoples circumstances differ. Inequality has never been wider. If there was a safety net for everyone then there would no need for foodbanks nor homeless shelters.

Although inequality has widened the indexation of benefits has by and large ensured that the lowest 1/2 deciles have actually suffered less than the mean, it is the next two deciles who have suffered from globalisatin and migration the most and then perhaps the next 50% who have stood still because of the skewing of rewards in the knowledge economy to a select few.

Don't forget due to the banking boom of the noughties by the time of the GFC we were living outside out means by about 10% of GDP (which the govt was borrowing on our behalf). Not surprisingly correctign this has led to a reduction in real incomes as we are reducing the amount of consumption that is coming from borrowing rather than income (don't forget the govt deficit is borrowing on behalf of every household, even if you personally think you are saving each year ythe govt is borrowing on your behalf).