Corbynomics: A Dystopia

setmefree2

Mistermeaner wrote: »

But 2in3 will so they will win?

Yes looking at it again it isn't clear if they are talking about people who voted SNP last time or voters in general...???

chucknorris

Mistermeaner wrote: »

But 2in3 will so they will win?

I almost hope that they win the referendum vote too.

Sapphire

gadgetmind wrote: »

Ditto. Both my parents left school at age 14 and I grew up in a Lancashire mining village where the mine closed long before Thatcher.

Anyone who tries to tell me that I've achieved what I've achieved because of a silver spoon in my mouth will get a knuckle sandwich in theirs!

Similar thing for me and my siblings. My parents lost everything material during the war, and my mother additionally lost all her close family to either the Russians or the Germans. We grew up in far greater poverty than is generally seen today in the UK (real poverty, though my mother was always very careful with money, so we made do), far fewer benefits, no university education for me, etc. However, despite the material disadvantages, my siblings and I all managed to create decent lives for ourselves and to prosper through sheer hard work, a good work ethic and drive.

I'd say that the material difficulties we experienced when we were younger actually propelled us into striving to be high achievers. We never expected anything from anyone, and neither my siblings nor I have ever expected or taken any benefits (apart from the 'usual' NHS services).

I'd also say that despite things like having no central heating or hot water at times in our lives (certainly no TV, and we only had a radio because my father was an electronics engineer who designed radios), and despite the fact that of my siblings, three of us lived together in a tiny room, we were happy (if sometimes rather volatile when we got on each other's nerves, which may also be down to our temperaments). We remain close.

Generali

Sapphire wrote: »

I'd say that the material difficulties we experienced when we were younger actually propelled us into striving to be high achievers. We never expected anything from anyone, and neither my siblings nor I have ever expected or taken any benefits (apart from the 'usual' NHS services).

I'd also say that despite things like having no central heating or hot water at times in our lives (certainly no TV, and we only had a radio because my father was an electronics engineer who designed radios), and despite the fact that of my siblings, three of us lived together in a tiny room, we were happy (if sometimes rather volatile when we got on each other's nerves, which may also be down to our temperaments). We remain close.

The trouble with these sorts of stories is that on average they aren't true: the boomer generation weren't particularly high achieving or low achieving compared to those that came before or after them.

They were born into a time poorer than the one they are aging in but that is normal for every generation in England since 1750.

Sapphire

Generali wrote: »

The trouble with these sorts of stories is that on average they aren't true: the boomer generation weren't particularly high achieving or low achieving compared to those that came before or after them.

They were born into a time poorer than the one they are aging in but that is normal for every generation in England since 1750.

Are you saying I'm lying about what I just wrote? If so, then :mad: to you. What I wrote is certainly true for me, my siblings and others who I know.

I'd add that from what I've observed, my contemporaries are high achievers – at least the ones I know are. Some may not have ended up earning a mint, and indeed, they didn't appear to particularly strive to, since making money was not their primary objective. However, they are very successful at whatever they turned their hand to, be it work in publishing, book illustration, antiques or archaeology. What is also common to them is that they have worked incredibly hard throughout their lives, and that they tend to have started from the 'bottom' and worked their way up. It's something that I personally found fascinating when I began work, and I wouldn't have it any other way – but I know a few people today who wouldn't even consider doing this.

Perhaps diverging from the subject slightly, it is the case that many jobs that used to be prevalent 2–3 decades ago have now been replaced due to advances in technology. It's something that SF authors of the Golden Age predicted, though many postulated that we would have more time for leisure by now, but without suggesting that we would have to pay for it! Technology will probably replace a lot more jobs. While there are likely to be new jobs in new disciplines, I don't think they will produce the type of mass employment that will be needed for an (unfortunately, given resources) growing population. There's a 'find out your automation risk' piece here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34066941

It tells you the types of jobs that are at risk, and those that are relatively safe. One can draw one's own conclusions from this.:cool:

lisyloo

It tells you the types of jobs that are at risk, and those that are relatively safe.

Only from an automation persecptive though.
For example computer programming is unlikely to be able to be done by robots certainly in the early stages, but it's very likely your job will be done by someone in India for 1/5th of the price or China or Eaatern Europe.
Automation is not the only risk.
Globalisation and immigration are already risks.

Generali

Sapphire wrote: »

Are you saying I'm lying about what I just wrote? If so, then :mad: to you. What I wrote is certainly true for me, my siblings and others who I know.

Nope. You have that wrong, I didn't accuse you of lying but I can see how you could think that. It wasn't my aim as I know nothing of your circumstances.

What I am saying is that all these boomer-ish justifications are based around a common set of achievements:

- born into poverty
- worked very hard
- got rich (comparatively)

As boomers have a range of incomes and wealth levels then this is quite clearly not true as a story for most boomers. That it is true for an individual doesn't make it true for all or even many in your generation.

Sapphire wrote: »

I'd add that from what I've observed, my contemporaries are high achievers – at least the ones I know are. Some may not have ended up earning a mint, and indeed, they didn't appear to particularly strive to, since making money was not their primary objective. However, they are very successful at whatever they turned their hand to, be it work in publishing, book illustration, antiques or archaeology. What is also common to them is that they have worked incredibly hard throughout their lives, and that they tend to have started from the 'bottom' and worked their way up. It's something that I personally found fascinating when I began work, and I wouldn't have it any other way – but I know a few people today who wouldn't even consider doing this.

Could it be that your friends and acquaintances have something in common other than just the years of their birth? When I was working in investment banking in London, everyone I met was hard working and successful including those that weren't in investment banking. Amazingly since moving to a similarly middle class district in Sydney and working in asset management, I find myself meeting equally hard working, successful types.

Sapphire wrote: »

Perhaps diverging from the subject slightly, it is the case that many jobs that used to be prevalent 2–3 decades ago have now been replaced due to advances in technology. It's something that SF authors of the Golden Age predicted, though many postulated that we would have more time for leisure by now, but without suggesting that we would have to pay for it! Technology will probably replace a lot more jobs. While there are likely to be new jobs in new disciplines, I don't think they will produce the type of mass employment that will be needed for an (unfortunately, given resources) growing population. There's a 'find out your automation risk' piece here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34066941

It tells you the types of jobs that are at risk, and those that are relatively safe. One can draw one's own conclusions from this.:cool:

I certainly agree that entry level jobs for people to get into better paid jobs are harder to find and harder to escape. It used to be pretty normal in a bank to have a fair few highly paid people (traders and senior managers) who had worked their way up through the ranks. Now you at least need to be a mediocre graduate to even have a sniff.

michaels

Generali wrote: »

Could it be that your friends and acquaintances have something in common other than just the years of their birth? When I was working in investment banking in London, everyone I met was hard working and successful including those that weren't in investment banking. Amazingly since moving to a similarly middle class district in Sydney and working in asset management, I find myself meeting equally hard working, successful types.

It is strange isn't it - I look around the floor plate where I work, 150 people (middling/lower incoms for central London), probably less than 10% overweight and yet apparently 2/3rds of UK adults are. Similarly on my train and even at the school gate. Doesn't mean that stats aren't true though, only that I see a limited self selcted part of the population.

I think this sort of confirmation bias and group think causes big problems in political parties and for example at the BBC.

Sapphire

Generali wrote: »

Could it be that your friends and acquaintances have something in common other than just the years of their birth?

I certainly agree that entry level jobs for people to get into better paid jobs are harder to find and harder to escape. It used to be pretty normal in a bank to have a fair few highly paid people (traders and senior managers) who had worked their way up through the ranks. Now you at least need to be a mediocre graduate to even have a sniff.

I see what you mean now. I agree with your post in general. However, I'm not sure how much my friends and acquaintances have in common. We seem to come from a variety of backgrounds. (Perhaps we are just all weirdoes).

With regard to entry-level jobs, I can say that these were easy to get up to a couple of decades ago, and were excellent for starting out in some professions, in which you could learn on the job (better than doing a degree in some cases). However, there are fewer such jobs now than they were, and this has much to do with changes in technology, I feel, as well as with globalisation and overpopulation, with too many people chasing after the same jobs, and many migrants from countries with poor economies being only too happy to work for low wages.

Apologies for misunderstanding your post.;)

Sapphire

lisyloo wrote: »

Only from an automation persecptive though.
For example computer programming is unlikely to be able to be done by robots certainly in the early stages, but it's very likely your job will be done by someone in India for 1/5th of the price or China or Eaatern Europe.
Automation is not the only risk.
Globalisation and immigration are already risks.

Too true. However, I doubt that some jobs in publishing, for example, especially those involving writing and editing (my profession) could be easily replaced by immigrants. I did use an Indian company once for book production (not something I agreed to, but publishing companies just want to do things as inexpensively as possible nowadays), but it was unable to handle the editing process. I also don't think sensitive editing and writing could easily be done by a machine.

I think I'm lucky to be able to continue in my profession (which I've always loved because learning things is more important to me than earning loadsa money) without much disturbance…:)