Gambling machines. I'm seriously impressed.

[pErvinalia]

I don't knowI dinna ken aboot lazy or feckless, what I know is that there are people who have gone through an education system that's geared to maintain the social class status quo, prepare the wealthy to keep and amass wealth, and the rest to be grist for the mill, and who have the problem that with the rise of new technologies for the last century and a half or two, unqualified jobs have become rarer and rarer... you can't get a job if you've not had a proper education, and the underclass hasn't the ££ to get one, so an underclass of terminally unemployed dole folk is created, and studiously maintained by the tories.

Yep, and this is the type of system that people like SD and 42 champion. It's why ideological liberals are no better than conservatives.

[Scot Dutchy]

Less of the "SD" please.

[JimC]

I'm assuming he meant Strontium Dog...

[pErvinalia]

Maybe I did, maybe I didn't..

[Strontium Dog]

You are going around in circles. You first have to support your claim that there are large numbers of lazy feckless and worthless people, before you can argue that I'm calling them less fortunate. It's also a red herring, as I am referring to all people who are disadvantaged regardless of how many basket case individuals there are in your neighbourhood.

So I ask, AGAIN, what is the point that you are trying to make in this thread, other than you have utter disdain for disadvantaged people (i.e. most of the people on welfare)?

I don't have to support anything, what do you think this is?

These are the type of people I'm talking about, they're everywhere. They exist.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... women.html

[Scot Dutchy]

Blame East Enders.

[pErvinalia]

You are going around in circles. You first have to support your claim that there are large numbers of lazy feckless and worthless people, before you can argue that I'm calling them less fortunate. It's also a red herring, as I am referring to all people who are disadvantaged regardless of how many basket case individuals there are in your neighbourhood.

So I ask, AGAIN, what is the point that you are trying to make in this thread, other than you have utter disdain for disadvantaged people (i.e. most of the people on welfare)?

I don't have to support anything, what do you think this is?

You made an assertion about my argument that is dependent on your initial claim about hordes of slackers roaming the streets. Your assertion about my argument is meaningless if you can't first support your claim. Which you clearly can't, as you've been asked multiple times to. And you've been asked multiple times to explain how this has anything to do with the fact that there are far more job seekers than there are job vacancies. You clearly are operating on feelings (i.e. you are being a true conservative), not anything in the real world.

[laklak]

We can't find enough unskilled workers here since the Mexicans started moving home. I blame Trump.

[Strontium Dog]

You made an assertion about my argument that is dependent on your initial claim about hordes of slackers roaming the streets. Your assertion about my argument is meaningless if you can't first support your claim. Which you clearly can't, as you've been asked multiple times to. And you've been asked multiple times to explain how this has anything to do with the fact that there are far more job seekers than there are job vacancies. You clearly are operating on feelings (i.e. you are being a true conservative), not anything in the real world.

I don't even know what your argument is supposed to be, so quite how I can make assertions about it is beyond me.

The unemployment rate in the UK is 4.2%, which is 1.42 million unemployed. A full employment rate is equal to an unemployment rate of approximately 5%, hence the UK is at full employment. The number of job vacancies in the UK is 806,000.

Now maybe you can explain what your point is supposed to be, other than denying the reality that there are many thousands of people who are literally unemployable, which has been evidenced on multiple occasions.

[Scot Dutchy]

It is not 4.2%. That are ONS figures. It is according to accepted European standards 21%. Please stop this crap. Check out those vacancies. They dont exist. You are talking a load of crap.

[pErvinalia]

You made an assertion about my argument that is dependent on your initial claim about hordes of slackers roaming the streets. Your assertion about my argument is meaningless if you can't first support your claim. Which you clearly can't, as you've been asked multiple times to. And you've been asked multiple times to explain how this has anything to do with the fact that there are far more job seekers than there are job vacancies. You clearly are operating on feelings (i.e. you are being a true conservative), not anything in the real world.

I don't even know what your argument is supposed to be, so quite how I can make assertions about it is beyond me.

The unemployment rate in the UK is 4.2%, which is 1.42 million unemployed. A full employment rate is equal to an unemployment rate of approximately 5%, hence the UK is at full employment. The number of job vacancies in the UK is 806,000.

Now maybe you can explain what your point is supposed to be, other than denying the reality that there are many thousands of people who are literally unemployable, which has been evidenced on multiple occasions.

As you know, my point has always been that there are more job seekers than job vacancies by many multiples. I've stated this literally many times now. So your initial implying that people who are unemployed and on welfare are feckless, and whatever other derogatory remarks you used, is not only offensive, but based on nothing but bias. That there might be many thousands of people walking around in their pyjamas at 3pm in the afternoon is irrelevant to the reality of the jobs market. And I've already address the full employment nonsense. It's an arbitrary number which tells us nothing about the ratio of job seekers to job vacancies. The latter is the only relevant point here in determining whether it is reasonable to tar all the unemployed with labels like "feckless" etc. You are a typical liberal. You live a sheltered existence and your feelings as opposed to the reality of the world dictate your views.

[pErvinalia]

It is not 4.2%. That are ONS figures. It is according to accepted European standards 21%. Please stop this crap. Check out those vacancies. They dont exist. You are talking a load of crap.

He has no clue, because he, like so many conservatives, are wilful in denying the reality of our societies. To accept this reality would shatter his whole world view and the barbaric economic neoliberal ideology that he advocates.

[laklak]

Eat the fucking poor! Fatten them up in feed lots first, of course, nobody wants a stringy Po' Boy sammich.

[Strontium Dog]

As you know, my point has always been that there are more job seekers than job vacancies by many multiples. I've stated this literally many times now. So your initial implying that people who are unemployed and on welfare are feckless, and whatever other derogatory remarks you used, is not only offensive, but based on nothing but bias. That there might be many thousands of people walking around in their pyjamas at 3pm in the afternoon is irrelevant to the reality of the jobs market. And I've already address the full employment nonsense. It's an arbitrary number which tells us nothing about the ratio of job seekers to job vacancies. The latter is the only relevant point here in determining whether it is reasonable to tar all the unemployed with labels like "feckless" etc. You are a typical liberal. You live a sheltered existence and your feelings as opposed to the reality of the world dictate your views.

Yeah, I live such a sheltered existence that I encounter these troglodytes on a literal daily basis.

If you're so stupid that you think 1.4m unemployed and 800,000 vacancies means that filling all those jobs still leaves 600,000 people unemployed, then there's nothing I can do for you. As I say, not a zero sum game.

[pErvinalia]

You haven't explained what you mean by "zero-sum game" in this context. I assume you mean it's a sort of musical chairs exercise, not that that is a non zero-sum game anyway. And as many people have pointed out to you already, unemployment is a limited stat. The stat that is relevant is under-employment. That accounts for everyone that is looking for work. But this has all been explained to you multiple times. You are happy to remain wilfully ignorant, it seems. I suppose I don't blame you for not wanting to shatter your fantastical world view of free market capitalism. You might actually have to take some sort of responsibility for the system you have supported and promoted.