Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
13140 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6164

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1478705 26-Jan-2016 07:35
3 people support this post
Send private message

All I will say that from my professional experience it is very difficult for sole parents to gain employment and very hard to find employment that is affordable.




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


11900 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3857

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1478884 26-Jan-2016 11:12
Send private message

kawaii:

 

Geektastic:

 

networkn:

 

I saw this article;

 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/76103313/blenheim-motherofthree-struggling-to-survive-since-coming-off-the-benefit

 

I don't want this to become a beneficiary bashing topic, however, I think more effort needs to go into helping people understand that working is more than just income. 

 

I have a few friends who were made redundant or left jobs for various reasons, who over time, due to being unable to find replacement work, became incredibly anti-social, focused on negative things and generally in not a good state. It got worse and worse.

 

One guy I knew nearly lost his wife and kids, until she basically said, go and find "any" work or I'm outta here. He got work paying minimum wage, and within 7 days the change in his entire outlook had changed. He is now back in high paid work which took just a matter of weeks.

 

Also, obviously benefits are not supposed to be a long-term solution for the non-ill, and getting back to work and not continuing to take from the state should be the ultimate goal. 

 

I wonder how we get the message across in a non punative manner.

 

I'll bet anyone would find work PDQ if it was that or starve.

 

One thing I think they could do is actually have the modern equivalent of the Victorian Poor House, where those requiring benefit are 'employed' to do, make, fix or whatever in government controlled facilities. If society is going to pay people instead of them earning, it seems logical to me that there is plenty of useful work that could be done in return.

 

For example, many elderly people perhaps cannot clean their own windows due to reduced mobility or perhaps cannot afford a window cleaner. Some unemployed people could be put together for a few hours of training, transported by minibus and go and clean said windows for a few hours per day. It would also help maintain a 'working frame of mind'.

 

Obviously they can't all clean windows but there are plenty of other bits of useful work that they could be doing.

 

I wish that were the case but here I am unemployed for almost 4 weeks and almost all the jobs I've applied for haven't started making their decision until February so even if one is looking for a job you are at the mercy of employers. Heck, I've just tried to go for a job at Spotless than the guy I was talking to who was all hung-ho about getting me to start has suddenly become uncontactable. I sure as heck don't want to be on the unemployment benefit but when the employment process goes about as fast as my nana with her zimmer frame then there really isn't much you can do other than keep putting out more applications and waiting.

 

 

 

 

That is one of the downsides of the bizarre 11 month economy we have here.

 

My wife often gets calls (for pretty senior consulting roles) which require "urgent" or "immediate" start. She has decided NZers do not know what those words actually mean!






2522 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 937

Subscriber

  Reply # 1478900 26-Jan-2016 11:37
Send private message

I would like to see a downward staggered unemployment payment to mitigate the excessive long-term use of it. Mitigating factors in some circumstances of course, but I think the 'standard' pure unemployment should start off at approximately what it is now, and after 6 months begin to reduce by say 10% of the starting value on a 3-monthly basis until it gets down to about half of it's starting value, and allows a maximum of 24 months of payment in any 60-month period. There really, imo, should not be a situation where someone purely on an unemployment (is it called Jobseeker benefit now?) benefit decides not to work because it's not worth the effort. Certainly other benefits such as medical, childcare etc would be handled differently.





Windows 7 x64 // i5-3570K // 16GB DDR3-1600 // GTX660Ti 2GB // Samsung 830 120GB SSD // OCZ Agility4 120GB SSD // Samsung U28D590D @ 3840x2160 & Asus PB278Q @ 2560x1440
Samsung Galaxy S5 SM-G900I w/Spark

703 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 67

Trusted

  Reply # 1478912 26-Jan-2016 11:57
4 people support this post
Send private message

Geektastic:

 

 

 

I'll bet anyone would find work PDQ if it was that or starve.

 

One thing I think they could do is actually have the modern equivalent of the Victorian Poor House, where those requiring benefit are 'employed' to do, make, fix or whatever in government controlled facilities. If society is going to pay people instead of them earning, it seems logical to me that there is plenty of useful work that could be done in return.

 

For example, many elderly people perhaps cannot clean their own windows due to reduced mobility or perhaps cannot afford a window cleaner. Some unemployed people could be put together for a few hours of training, transported by minibus and go and clean said windows for a few hours per day. It would also help maintain a 'working frame of mind'.

 

Obviously they can't all clean windows but there are plenty of other bits of useful work that they could be doing.

 

 

The last thing I thought I would ever see on Geekzone was this level of elitist medieval drivel. I wont even bother going into the myriad practical, political, or historical reasons your wet dream will never work as I do not believe for one second you would understand any of it. I am simply registering my incredulity.


gzt

10181 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1560


  Reply # 1478916 26-Jan-2016 12:02
2 people support this post
Send private message

Some of these solutions are not really in the spirit of the OP:

networkn: I wonder how we get the message across in a non punative manner.


Edit: on second thought, not many if any ; ).

703 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 67

Trusted

  Reply # 1478936 26-Jan-2016 12:33
3 people support this post
Send private message

networkn:

 

I saw this article;

 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/76103313/blenheim-motherofthree-struggling-to-survive-since-coming-off-the-benefit

 

I don't want this to become a beneficiary bashing topic, however, I think more effort needs to go into helping people understand that working is more than just income. 

 

I have a few friends who were made redundant or left jobs for various reasons, who over time, due to being unable to find replacement work, became incredibly anti-social, focused on negative things and generally in not a good state. It got worse and worse.

 

One guy I knew nearly lost his wife and kids, until she basically said, go and find "any" work or I'm outta here. He got work paying minimum wage, and within 7 days the change in his entire outlook had changed. He is now back in high paid work which took just a matter of weeks.

 

Also, obviously benefits are not supposed to be a long-term solution for the non-ill, and getting back to work and not continuing to take from the state should be the ultimate goal. 

 

I wonder how we get the message across in a non punative manner.

 

 

 

 

That's tricky. First of all, it must be acknowledged that "the message" is already there for 99% of the population. The pervasive myth in some circles that the poor 'just don't know the benefits of work' has been perpetrated by politicians for years and many have fallen for it despite ZERO credible evidence from any scientific source. It is, in effect, a Faith based argument as much as any religious ideology.

 

As far as persuading people to take work that is of no meaningful financial benefit to them on the promise of it being some sort of psychological benefit: I think the best solution to that is to lead by example. Make it easy to get such work. Entice with non-financial incentives - perks. If none of that is feasible... well, you have to ask yourself: if an employer does not value the work, and cannot incentivise it in any other way, perhaps it is NOT fit for the job market at all.

 

The obvious solution is also the simplest and it surprises me that it has not been mentioned, as it's been on the media countless times: PAY MORE. ALL the incentive most would ever need. And if you can't, well may be the problem lies not with the employee by with the employer. You want the job done, you pay for it. If your offer is to low, you'll have trouble filling the position.

 

Why do we think it's clever or smart to force people into subsistence or below 'employment'? On the vague idea of it being somehow beneficial? It's not beneficial for them or the economy. Maybe they get a better job later? Why not get it first and skip the whole silly circus?

 

OH, I know: there are a bunch of jobs deemed too menial to pay a living wage for, which yet, perversely, NEED to be done. Which in any other market would dictate a raise in wages to incentivise. But not here. Why?

 

 

 

 


11900 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3857

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1478943 26-Jan-2016 12:50
Send private message

Brendan:

 

Geektastic:

 

 

 

I'll bet anyone would find work PDQ if it was that or starve.

 

One thing I think they could do is actually have the modern equivalent of the Victorian Poor House, where those requiring benefit are 'employed' to do, make, fix or whatever in government controlled facilities. If society is going to pay people instead of them earning, it seems logical to me that there is plenty of useful work that could be done in return.

 

For example, many elderly people perhaps cannot clean their own windows due to reduced mobility or perhaps cannot afford a window cleaner. Some unemployed people could be put together for a few hours of training, transported by minibus and go and clean said windows for a few hours per day. It would also help maintain a 'working frame of mind'.

 

Obviously they can't all clean windows but there are plenty of other bits of useful work that they could be doing.

 

 

The last thing I thought I would ever see on Geekzone was this level of elitist medieval drivel. I wont even bother going into the myriad practical, political, or historical reasons your wet dream will never work as I do not believe for one second you would understand any of it. I am simply registering my incredulity.

 

 


Do please explain why you think people ought not to contribute in return for being supported. My IQ is 141 so I am fairly confident I will understand it as long as you do not use big words.






11900 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3857

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1478945 26-Jan-2016 12:52
Send private message

Inphinity:

 

I would like to see a downward staggered unemployment payment to mitigate the excessive long-term use of it. Mitigating factors in some circumstances of course, but I think the 'standard' pure unemployment should start off at approximately what it is now, and after 6 months begin to reduce by say 10% of the starting value on a 3-monthly basis until it gets down to about half of it's starting value, and allows a maximum of 24 months of payment in any 60-month period. There really, imo, should not be a situation where someone purely on an unemployment (is it called Jobseeker benefit now?) benefit decides not to work because it's not worth the effort. Certainly other benefits such as medical, childcare etc would be handled differently.

 

 

 

 

Or combine it with my work for benefits idea - you get a basic (very) amount, with a top up based on the amount of hours you put into a variety of schemes.






801 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 355


  Reply # 1478951 26-Jan-2016 12:56
3 people support this post
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

I don't think we can. Such people are a lost cause. Just let them have the (minimum survival) benefit and forget about it. I think you can encourage people who want to improve their situation and teach them better ways of going about things, but people who have no motivation to change, or who just don't get it, cannot be helped in any meaningful way. The place where you have to start is in early childhood, when values and character are formed. You have to give children a purpose in life, and show them why it is worth pursuing. You have to make them understand that other people's property is not theirs for the taking, just because it happens to lie unguarded. These are the kinds of things you can't teach an adult if they don't already understand them.

 

Reactionary right-wing knee jerkers will no doubt object to people being given an income, even a minimal one, for nothing, but standing on principle when there is no practical alternative has little purpose. Yes, you can chuck all the bludgers into jail at enormous expense, like they did in the 19th century, or you can make them go through the motions of working for the dole on meaningless projects, or just cut them loose and watch the crime statistics shoot up, but I think these are all self-defeating measures. Far better to cut your losses, give them enough to survive on, and move on to the next generation. Not that this government will make more than useless token gestures in that direction.

 

For those like the one you describe, who have the desire but become demotivated by lack of opportunity, this again is entirely due to successive governments not being prepared to do what is actually necessary to change things in any meaningful way. Full kudos to your friend who was able (with some well-placed nudging from his wife) to pull himself back up by starting at the bottom, but not everyone has the strength of character to do that. This government, some government, needs to ensure real employment opportunities, not just minimum-wage crap work, where anyone with the motivation can get a job that has real value and offers genuine opportunity for moving up. It has to be work that offers more than just survival. People need to be able to think they can save up for a TV or a car or a house so they can build a life. That is what gives people a sense of purpose and meaning. If it can't be done any other way, then do it with New Deal-style public works projects like Roosevelt did. 

 

 

 

 

 

Given the rise of automation , globalisation etc there are actually going to be MORE people unemployed long term, not just low paid manual jobs, but some of reasonable skill and increasing.

 

We need to start looking past the wage economy and start deciding what/how the "startrek" economy is going to look like.

 

There will be a LOT of resistance from those at the top, because they enjoy the power and privilege that wealth gives them.

 

The governments have also buggered a lot of systems that worked well. We had a fair graded system on unskilled workers, semiskilled, trades, semiprofessional, professional. Now how ever to get an apprenticeship you have to do pre apprenticeship training (with NO guarantee of a job), polytechs all want to teach degrees, private training organisations skim the cream off the top financially. The whole system is a mess.

 

Too often the word "responsibility" is used when what is meant is "blame".

 

The "trickle down theory" of economics has failed

 

Lower taxes has meant even more money has shifted from the poor to the rich. Howard Hughes and others managed to become billionaires even when paying substantially higher taxes, so that was never an impediment to people becoming rich.


801 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 355


  Reply # 1478954 26-Jan-2016 12:58
One person supports this post
Send private message

Geektastic:

 

Inphinity:

 

I would like to see a downward staggered unemployment payment to mitigate the excessive long-term use of it. Mitigating factors in some circumstances of course, but I think the 'standard' pure unemployment should start off at approximately what it is now, and after 6 months begin to reduce by say 10% of the starting value on a 3-monthly basis until it gets down to about half of it's starting value, and allows a maximum of 24 months of payment in any 60-month period. There really, imo, should not be a situation where someone purely on an unemployment (is it called Jobseeker benefit now?) benefit decides not to work because it's not worth the effort. Certainly other benefits such as medical, childcare etc would be handled differently.

 

 

 

 

Or combine it with my work for benefits idea - you get a basic (very) amount, with a top up based on the amount of hours you put into a variety of schemes.

 

 

 

 

So you are saying that the people who already do those jobs and get paid for it will become unemployed and get paid less for it.

 

Because that is what will happen.


11900 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3857

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1478955 26-Jan-2016 13:01
Send private message

sir1963:

 

Geektastic:

 

Inphinity:

 

I would like to see a downward staggered unemployment payment to mitigate the excessive long-term use of it. Mitigating factors in some circumstances of course, but I think the 'standard' pure unemployment should start off at approximately what it is now, and after 6 months begin to reduce by say 10% of the starting value on a 3-monthly basis until it gets down to about half of it's starting value, and allows a maximum of 24 months of payment in any 60-month period. There really, imo, should not be a situation where someone purely on an unemployment (is it called Jobseeker benefit now?) benefit decides not to work because it's not worth the effort. Certainly other benefits such as medical, childcare etc would be handled differently.

 

 

 

 

Or combine it with my work for benefits idea - you get a basic (very) amount, with a top up based on the amount of hours you put into a variety of schemes.

 

 

 

 

So you are saying that the people who already do those jobs and get paid for it will become unemployed and get paid less for it.

 

Because that is what will happen.

 

 

 

 

It would if the jobs were being done.

 

For example, there is litter all over the place so clearly that is not being picked up. There is graffiti that needs cleaning off. 

 

More likely is that some things that are presently done on a voluntary basis by people in between life and work would end up being picked up by such a scheme and those people who presently volunteer would have more spare time.






11900 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3857

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1478964 26-Jan-2016 13:05
Send private message

sir1963:

 

Rikkitic:

 

I don't think we can. Such people are a lost cause. Just let them have the (minimum survival) benefit and forget about it. I think you can encourage people who want to improve their situation and teach them better ways of going about things, but people who have no motivation to change, or who just don't get it, cannot be helped in any meaningful way. The place where you have to start is in early childhood, when values and character are formed. You have to give children a purpose in life, and show them why it is worth pursuing. You have to make them understand that other people's property is not theirs for the taking, just because it happens to lie unguarded. These are the kinds of things you can't teach an adult if they don't already understand them.

 

Reactionary right-wing knee jerkers will no doubt object to people being given an income, even a minimal one, for nothing, but standing on principle when there is no practical alternative has little purpose. Yes, you can chuck all the bludgers into jail at enormous expense, like they did in the 19th century, or you can make them go through the motions of working for the dole on meaningless projects, or just cut them loose and watch the crime statistics shoot up, but I think these are all self-defeating measures. Far better to cut your losses, give them enough to survive on, and move on to the next generation. Not that this government will make more than useless token gestures in that direction.

 

For those like the one you describe, who have the desire but become demotivated by lack of opportunity, this again is entirely due to successive governments not being prepared to do what is actually necessary to change things in any meaningful way. Full kudos to your friend who was able (with some well-placed nudging from his wife) to pull himself back up by starting at the bottom, but not everyone has the strength of character to do that. This government, some government, needs to ensure real employment opportunities, not just minimum-wage crap work, where anyone with the motivation can get a job that has real value and offers genuine opportunity for moving up. It has to be work that offers more than just survival. People need to be able to think they can save up for a TV or a car or a house so they can build a life. That is what gives people a sense of purpose and meaning. If it can't be done any other way, then do it with New Deal-style public works projects like Roosevelt did. 

 

 

 

 

 

Given the rise of automation , globalisation etc there are actually going to be MORE people unemployed long term, not just low paid manual jobs, but some of reasonable skill and increasing.

 

We need to start looking past the wage economy and start deciding what/how the "startrek" economy is going to look like.

 

There will be a LOT of resistance from those at the top, because they enjoy the power and privilege that wealth gives them.

 

The governments have also buggered a lot of systems that worked well. We had a fair graded system on unskilled workers, semiskilled, trades, semiprofessional, professional. Now how ever to get an apprenticeship you have to do pre apprenticeship training (with NO guarantee of a job), polytechs all want to teach degrees, private training organisations skim the cream off the top financially. The whole system is a mess.

 

Too often the word "responsibility" is used when what is meant is "blame".

 

The "trickle down theory" of economics has failed

 

Lower taxes has meant even more money has shifted from the poor to the rich. Howard Hughes and others managed to become billionaires even when paying substantially higher taxes, so that was never an impediment to people becoming rich.

 

 

The fundamental issue to be faced is that there are or will be too many people for the available work.

 

Unless the world can face up to the fact that the population cannot be allowed to grow unrestrained because neither the physical environment nor the economic one will cope, I can't see anything getting better over the long term at all. All the shifting of people around the place (especially in Europe just now) only leads to stories like this and general ruination over time.

 

Also the poor really WERE poor when Howard Hughes, JJ Astor etc were rich - and with pretty much zero healthcare or benefit systems.






801 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 355


  Reply # 1478971 26-Jan-2016 13:14
Send private message

Geektastic:

 

networkn:

 

I saw this article;

 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/76103313/blenheim-motherofthree-struggling-to-survive-since-coming-off-the-benefit

 

I don't want this to become a beneficiary bashing topic, however, I think more effort needs to go into helping people understand that working is more than just income. 

 

I have a few friends who were made redundant or left jobs for various reasons, who over time, due to being unable to find replacement work, became incredibly anti-social, focused on negative things and generally in not a good state. It got worse and worse.

 

One guy I knew nearly lost his wife and kids, until she basically said, go and find "any" work or I'm outta here. He got work paying minimum wage, and within 7 days the change in his entire outlook had changed. He is now back in high paid work which took just a matter of weeks.

 

Also, obviously benefits are not supposed to be a long-term solution for the non-ill, and getting back to work and not continuing to take from the state should be the ultimate goal. 

 

I wonder how we get the message across in a non punative manner.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll bet anyone would find work PDQ if it was that or starve.

 

One thing I think they could do is actually have the modern equivalent of the Victorian Poor House, where those requiring benefit are 'employed' to do, make, fix or whatever in government controlled facilities. If society is going to pay people instead of them earning, it seems logical to me that there is plenty of useful work that could be done in return.

 

For example, many elderly people perhaps cannot clean their own windows due to reduced mobility or perhaps cannot afford a window cleaner. Some unemployed people could be put together for a few hours of training, transported by minibus and go and clean said windows for a few hours per day. It would also help maintain a 'working frame of mind'.

 

Obviously they can't all clean windows but there are plenty of other bits of useful work that they could be doing.

 

 

 

 

No, your house would probably be burgled more often, as would your locals businesses etc.

 

There would be a LOT more resentment and a LOT more crime.

 

But if we are going to go into user pays that dramatically then of course the victim of the crime can pay from the criminal to be incarcerated. It was NOT my house, its nothing to do with me, why should I pay anything to solve YOUR problem ?

 

Of course those earning an income as cleaners, window washers and the like will be able to join the dole and do the same job for less, because that is what WILL happen.

 

Maybe we can change the way incomes are calculated , if they were perhaps based on value to the society.....

 

Accountants may get paid less than aged care workers

 

Lawyers may get paid less than those working with the handicapped/disabled 

 

Business leaders may get paid less than nurses.

 

Teachers could be among the highest paid.

 

Realestate agents would be classed as shop assistants 

 

 

 

etc etc etc.


11900 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3857

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1478977 26-Jan-2016 13:16
Send private message

sir1963:

 

Geektastic:

 

networkn:

 

I saw this article;

 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/76103313/blenheim-motherofthree-struggling-to-survive-since-coming-off-the-benefit

 

I don't want this to become a beneficiary bashing topic, however, I think more effort needs to go into helping people understand that working is more than just income. 

 

I have a few friends who were made redundant or left jobs for various reasons, who over time, due to being unable to find replacement work, became incredibly anti-social, focused on negative things and generally in not a good state. It got worse and worse.

 

One guy I knew nearly lost his wife and kids, until she basically said, go and find "any" work or I'm outta here. He got work paying minimum wage, and within 7 days the change in his entire outlook had changed. He is now back in high paid work which took just a matter of weeks.

 

Also, obviously benefits are not supposed to be a long-term solution for the non-ill, and getting back to work and not continuing to take from the state should be the ultimate goal. 

 

I wonder how we get the message across in a non punative manner.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll bet anyone would find work PDQ if it was that or starve.

 

One thing I think they could do is actually have the modern equivalent of the Victorian Poor House, where those requiring benefit are 'employed' to do, make, fix or whatever in government controlled facilities. If society is going to pay people instead of them earning, it seems logical to me that there is plenty of useful work that could be done in return.

 

For example, many elderly people perhaps cannot clean their own windows due to reduced mobility or perhaps cannot afford a window cleaner. Some unemployed people could be put together for a few hours of training, transported by minibus and go and clean said windows for a few hours per day. It would also help maintain a 'working frame of mind'.

 

Obviously they can't all clean windows but there are plenty of other bits of useful work that they could be doing.

 

 

 

 

No, your house would probably be burgled more often, as would your locals businesses etc.

 

There would be a LOT more resentment and a LOT more crime.

 

But if we are going to go into user pays that dramatically then of course the victim of the crime can pay from the criminal to be incarcerated. It was NOT my house, its nothing to do with me, why should I pay anything to solve YOUR problem ?

 

Of course those earning an income as cleaners, window washers and the like will be able to join the dole and do the same job for less, because that is what WILL happen.

 

Maybe we can change the way incomes are calculated , if they were perhaps based on value to the society.....

 

Accountants may get paid less than aged care workers

 

Lawyers may get paid less than those working with the handicapped/disabled 

 

Business leaders may get paid less than nurses.

 

Teachers could be among the highest paid.

 

Realestate agents would be classed as shop assistants 

 

 

 

etc etc etc.

 

 

 

 

At least sports players would have to live on beans on toast in that scenario...! cool






Glurp
8237 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3790

Subscriber

  Reply # 1478983 26-Jan-2016 13:22
Send private message

Geektastic:

 

 

 

 

 

The fundamental issue to be faced is that there are or will be too many people for the available work.

 

Unless the world can face up to the fact that the population cannot be allowed to grow unrestrained because neither the physical environment nor the economic one will cope, I can't see anything getting better over the long term at all. All the shifting of people around the place (especially in Europe just now) only leads to stories like this and general ruination over time.

 

Also the poor really WERE poor when Howard Hughes, JJ Astor etc were rich - and with pretty much zero healthcare or benefit systems.

 

 

That certainly is a fairly pessimistic view. I don't have a magic formula with the answers but I do strongly believe that our current economic system is unsustainable. How can there be constant growth when there is no place to grow to? I think I read somewhere that we already need three earths just to keep going as we are. I think the present system is broken, in more ways than one. Wealth disparity and poverty and lack of any possibility for those at the bottom to better themselves are just symptoms of this. The tax system is an unworkable anachronism. Honestly, I think the whole mess is on the way down the toilet. I guess that is a pretty pessimistic view as well, except I also believe things can change for the better. Hopefully this can happen before there is a complete collapse and a lot of people get hurt.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.