French Riots. Really? Really???

[Trolldor]

Coito ergo sum wrote:

The problem with government run restaurants is not, of course, with the employees themselves. It's with the system. Nobody owns the place. Nobody has a "stake" in its success or failure, like in a privately run restaurant. As such, there is no person whose pocket ultimately suffers if it doesn't run right. The "community" is the owner, and that is the functional equivalent of nobody being the owner. That results in people not giving much of a shit about a lot of business factors that are a concern in a private business.

I agree that this is a real phenomenum, and therefore a real problem in some (but perhaps not all) government-run services. As such, it is a legitimate argument for private enterprise, basically resting on motivation, efficiency and a lack of complacency.

However, private enterprise let run free also leads to excessive differences in wealth levels, a culture of greed, and chaotic financial systems. There must be carefully planned and intelligently run intervention by democratically elected government to regulate corporate activities, and to reduce the excessive power wielded by a few. A strong union movement should be part of the mix, as well as a free press with a culture of investigative journalism. Checks and balances should be the name of the game...

Definitely. A well regulated market is not the same as an over-regulated market.
Minimum wage, well developed Occupational Health and Safety, protection from unfair dismissal, effective and reasonable worker's comp etc.
Provide for the workers and the workers will provide for the business.


As for the French, nobody here has actually presented a clear picture of the situation. I just see a lot of political rhetoric and nothing by way of actual causes.

[Svartalf]

Because the causes are nebulous. Since the morons and hyperwealthy bore him to power, szarkozyt has been favoring the 3% richest members of the population at the expense of the masses. This reducing the living standards of the many without tapping the huge wealth of the few was one straw too much

[Trolldor]

Extending the retirement age to 62 is not 'reducing the living standards'.
Actually, precisely because the retirement age is too low in Australia and the aging population is too high, there will be group with only a partial pension available to them and there may even be a group that will be forced to be entirely self-funded.
You can't just take money from the top 3% so the other 97% can have a happy retirement. Did the top 3% not also work for their money? Why are they less entiteld to it?

Provide a solid, evidence-backed explanation as to what can be done rather than just wailing about how the wealthy are wealthy.

[Svartalf]

It is. The working environment is high pressure and unpleasant enough to make you want to retire. The basic contract was that you can retire at 60, pushing the goalpost back means more time at the grind, less time to enjoy your final years (that is before your health is bad enough that you don't really enjoy) ... and that's even if you don't die from the strain before retiring at all.

I acknowledge that the pensioners to workers ratio is problematic and that the huge afflux of baby boomers is making things worse. Problem is that the government has not done what else could be done to improve the resources available to the state to fund pensions and pay off the debt before resorting to this.

[Trolldor]

Wonderful. More emotional response without any actual substance.

I'm not saying that those 60 and over should work, I'm simply asking for actual substance beyond "OMG everyone will die from stress once they hit 61!"

[Svartalf]

You are the one who argues that working longer is not a diminution of the quality of life of those who have to suffer it. It's more wear tear on the body and mind, and less time to enjoy retirement, since working longer is not going to extend your lifespan.
Plus, given the current employment situation, many people got early retirement instead of being fired and unemployed until they hit retirement age. Pushing back that age (and they already pulled the plug on early retirement schemes) is just going to create a growing pool of seniors on the dole, or force employers to keep seniors, so preventing the entrance of young workers on the actual work market.

[Trolldor]

You are the one who argues that working longer is not a diminution of the quality of life of those who have to suffer it. It's more wear tear on the body and mind, and less time to enjoy retirement, since working longer is not going to extend your lifespan.

I'm not arguing it's not, I'm saying you have yet to establish it is. You haven't done so. You've asserted it, definitely, but haven't supported the idea.

Plus, given the current employment situation, many people got early retirement instead of being fired and unemployed until they hit retirement age. Pushing back that age (and they already pulled the plug on early retirement schemes) is just going to create a growing pool of seniors on the dole, or force employers to keep seniors, so preventing the entrance of young workers on the actual work market.

Again, can you actually establish this? Or are these just more assertions?

[Svartalf]

Because the employment situation and the fact that jobs get destroyed, not created, and the fact that there are more candidates for employments than available jobs are all assertions and not harsh realities?

[Trolldor]

Because the employment situation and the fact that jobs get destroyed, not created, and the fact that there are more candidates for employments than available jobs are all assertions and not harsh realities?

Assertion. Where's the evidence?

[Svartalf]

more dormouse in your tea?

[Trolldor]

So you're telling me you can't reference a single study, no statistics which support your position?

Well, then assertion it is.

[Coito ergo sum]

The answer, of course, is for the workers of the world to unite and seize control of the means of production. Down with vampire capitalism!

The more cooks in the kitchen the better!

In some situations it's been shown to work wonderfully.

Perhaps the exception that proves the rule...

There's a reason the sayings aren't "too many Indians and not enough Chiefs," or "too few cooks spoil the broth."

[Trolldor]

And there's a reason idioms are fucking useless when trying to justify your position.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito ergo sum wrote:

The problem with government run restaurants is not, of course, with the employees themselves. It's with the system. Nobody owns the place. Nobody has a "stake" in its success or failure, like in a privately run restaurant. As such, there is no person whose pocket ultimately suffers if it doesn't run right. The "community" is the owner, and that is the functional equivalent of nobody being the owner. That results in people not giving much of a shit about a lot of business factors that are a concern in a private business.

I agree that this is a real phenomenum, and therefore a real problem in some (but perhaps not all) government-run services. As such, it is a legitimate argument for private enterprise, basically resting on motivation, efficiency and a lack of complacency.

However, private enterprise let run free also leads to excessive differences in wealth levels, a culture of greed, and chaotic financial systems. There must be carefully planned and intelligently run intervention by democratically elected government to regulate corporate activities, and to reduce the excessive power wielded by a few. A strong union movement should be part of the mix, as well as a free press with a culture of investigative journalism. Checks and balances should be the name of the game...

I don't disagree. The Devil is in the details.

I would add that we haven't had private enterprise running free for about 100 years.

[Coito ergo sum]

Retired at 39. Fuck you poor suckers.

congrats!

But, you're the one they're talking about when they say that some privileged folks are unfairly prospering on the backs of the people - you're some are saying isn't paying his fair share - you're the one who ought to pay more. And, if you raise a pip about it, you're a whiner, just looking to insulate your white, male privilege.