• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

Gutter Boy said:
Its not fewer workers, it's probably more. Just doing a bit less work each. When 10% of the population own 85% of the wealth, the question never needs to be who is going to pay for it.
Click to expand...

So the proposal is based upon the assumption of greater workforce participation, despite the fact that everybody would get enough free money to live on?

That doesn't sound the most prudent of planning.
 
The idea is, I think, more people are less employed. GBs point on my team was we would go from 10 full time people to 12 working 28 hour weeks.

Where the extra 2 come from I dont know.

We would all be paying tax, though I would also assumes wages (and so tax take) would be greatly reduced.

And so rich people will pay for it.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
The idea is, I think, more people are less employed. GBs point on my team was we would go from 10 full time people to 12 working 28 hour weeks.

Where the extra 2 come from I dont know.

We would all be paying tax, though I would also assumes wages (and so tax take) would be greatly reduced.

And so rich people will fudge off somewhere else.
Click to expand...
Fixed that for you
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
The idea is, I think, more people are less employed. GBs point on my team was we would go from 10 full time people to 12 working 28 hour weeks.

Where the extra 2 come from I dont know.

We would all be paying tax, though I would also assumes wages (and so tax take) would be greatly reduced.

And so rich people will pay for it.
Click to expand...

You're looking into it too deeply, that's not allowed.
Less work, more money, I need TP for my bunghole.
How is it paid for? Don't know, don't care, but it's a vote winner.
 
glasgowspur said:
You're looking into it too deeply, that's not allowed.
Less work, more money, I need TP for my bunghole.
How is it paid for? Don't know, don't care, but it's a vote winner.
Click to expand...

Robots generate the money and the 28 hour maximum working week redistributes it better
 
As Ive already said, algorythms only do so much. I dont think they are going to change things the way you seem to think they will.

They still require input, interpretation, review etc - they are not autonomous.

In my workplace all things like that have done is shifted peoples workload from data crunching to review. Its more added value, but not less work.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
The idea is, I think, more people are less employed. GBs point on my team was we would go from 10 full time people to 12 working 28 hour weeks.

Where the extra 2 come from I dont know.

We would all be paying tax, though I would also assumes wages (and so tax take) would be greatly reduced.

And so rich people will pay for it.
Click to expand...

I have met a few rich people in my time and they have all been bent bastards, they will find some way of paying less then they should.
 
I have a horrible feeling that, if automation/AI/robots ever get to the point where most of our labour isn't needed anymore, the super rich will simply kill the rest of us off with a virus and have the earth as their playground, served by robot slaves. Still, I'll be dead by then, so time to eat as much steak as possible and go and throw some plastic bags into the nearest river. Scorched earth for Jeff Besos, go phuck yourself you bald tw@t!
 
I see that the PM has resigned from his other job as editor of The Daily Mail.

Bookies favourite to replace him is Tommy Robinson.
 
Gutter Boy said:
Robots generate the money and the 28 hour maximum working week redistributes it better
Click to expand...

That really is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
So why don't we just build a whole load of money generating robots, give everyone their own robot and there's no more poverty.
 
milo said:
An interesting thread

https://twitter.com/x/status/1004481705124786176
Click to expand...

David Davis is the victor of the hour, it seems, writes BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg.

The Brexit secretary threatened to quit the government if the prime minister refused to change her proposal to fix the customs conundrum - after he demanded a time limit on the "backstop", the insurance policy for avoiding a hard Irish border if trade talks break down.

There is a date in the document that is now on its way to Brussels.

---

From start to now its been a shambles. May managing to just about react to all the problems and kick them down the road at each turn. When will all the issues that have stickey plasters covering them up fall apart?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back