Harry - LCFC Posted 15 February 2014 Posted 15 February 2014 yes its an important criteria when choosing a job but ability comes into it. there are physical limits to cleaning toilets but last time I checked the mass majority of people in this country have 2 arms. willingness will also affect pay in some cases, my job for example. it requires more physical fitness than cleaning toilets, more intelligence due to the amount of problem solving involved and good social skills. since it involves being outdoors in all weathers doing unclean work it does drive the wage up a bit. but if a job can be done by almost anyone willingness is going to have a limited affect on the wage. I know people's ability to earn more is affected by genetics, but why should we punish people for being talented and having advantages just because other where denied them? if I was to get into a ring with a young Mohammed Ali should we break his arm to make it fair? I also wouldnt want my children if they were born with a talent to be punished just to appease the envy of others. Muhammad Ali wasn't born with that ability, just like people aren't born with the ability to do complex maths or kick a football properly. You pick up these skills through hard work and a desire to succeed. Muhammad Ali undoubtedly spent countless hours working at what he did, that is why he deserves a higher income than others - because he was prepared to put the effort in. Looking at it the other way, if it's true that he was born with such vastly greater skill than others then you can't argue he deserves to be rewarded any more than a cleaner as he owes his position to luck alone.
The God Emperor Posted 15 February 2014 Posted 15 February 2014 Muhammad Ali wasn't born with that ability, just like people aren't born with the ability to do complex maths or kick a football properly. You pick up these skills through hard work and a desire to succeed. Muhammad Ali undoubtedly spent countless hours working at what he did, that is why he deserves a higher income than others - because he was prepared to put the effort in. Looking at it the other way, if it's true that he was born with such vastly greater skill than others then you can't argue he deserves to be rewarded any more than a cleaner as he owes his position to luck alone. like I've said it wasn't the best example. with everything there is a degree of 'natural talent' but a lot of hard work still needs to be put in. I've been arguing the point that it doesn't matter whether advantages are earned or not. if the people who have taken on the responsibility to decide what those with these advantages are paid, and they choose that they should be paid highly, then there is nothing unfair or wrong about it.
Smudge Posted 15 February 2014 Posted 15 February 2014 Tax and salary capping are two different babies. The 60's and 70's are very different to today but even then it really didn't send that many people abroad - and of those that went most came back with their tails between their legs realising that money isn't everything. I like your point about reward and risk for small businesses - I ran one myself and understand that. However a salary cap wouldn't affect small businesses. I'd like to see a company profits cap but the level wouldn't affect Small enterprise it should be there to influence re-investment of profits in tech or R&D or expansion. A salary cap on wages isn't a tax it's a ceiling just as we have a safety net in a floor. My point was that taxation is a method of capping wages.
Buce Posted 15 February 2014 Posted 15 February 2014 I hated training, but I told myself: "suffer now and live life as a champion" - The Greatest
Guest MattP Posted 15 February 2014 Posted 15 February 2014 Pisses me off how Ali is referred to as the greatest. P4P he couldn't wipe Sugar Ray Robinsons arse and Joe Louis is still the greatest heavy that ever walked the planet.
Dr The Singh Posted 15 February 2014 Posted 15 February 2014 Pisses me off how Ali is referred to as the greatest. P4P he couldn't wipe Sugar Ray Robinsons arse and Joe Louis is still the greatest heavy that ever walked the planet. Casius Clay was better!!
Zingari Posted 15 February 2014 Posted 15 February 2014 Pisses me off how Ali is referred to as the greatest. P4P he couldn't wipe Sugar Ray Robinsons arse and Joe Louis is still the greatest heavy that ever walked the planet.
pSinatra Posted 15 February 2014 Posted 15 February 2014 never touched him..........MattP took a dive
Rincewind Posted 15 February 2014 Posted 15 February 2014 never touched him..........MattP took a dive No he was pissed and fell over his laces.
Zingari Posted 16 February 2014 Posted 16 February 2014 never touched him..........MattP took a dive i'm sure he did float like butterfly , sting like a bee i'm gonna wup that sucka mattp
Alf Bentley Posted 17 February 2014 Posted 17 February 2014 Returning to Benefits Street (participants on benefits system C4 8.30pm tonight, followed by debate 9pm)... Interesting to see Channel 5's scheduling again. The week before last, when C4 was taking a week off, C5 suddenly scheduled a controversial debate about benefits... Now, this week, it has scheduled a big debate about immigration clashing with Channel 4's final Benefits Street programmes! Call me cynical, but I spot another "spoiler" programme, scheduled at short notice to nick viewers and advertising revenue off C4, on the assumption that viewers interested in controversies over benefits will also be interested in controversies over immigration. Before anyone jumps on me, there's absolutely nothing wrong with having a debate about immigration - a good idea if well done. It's just the timing that has me questioning the motives behind the C5 broadcast - and the likely quality.
Zingari Posted 17 February 2014 Posted 17 February 2014 Good point Alf , there might be some attempt at spoiling , but surely if the want revenue they'll avoid the clash of timing and hope viewers will switch from one to another in the same way Corry Eastenders and Emmerdale get staggered so as to form a seamless 2 hour stretch of mindless rubbish I really did try to watch BS a couple of times but i couldn't stick it out . edit; i don't think programme timing and scheduling is as important anymore with all the +1 channels and iplayers etc
Rincewind Posted 17 February 2014 Posted 17 February 2014 There is the plus one and catch up facility but I see what you mean. Watching E 4 last night and White Dee was on in the break promoting Benefit Street and the debate. Isshe going to be on that after all? I'll try and watch it.
Guest MattP Posted 17 February 2014 Posted 17 February 2014 No chance am I watching a debate on channel 5 after what they pulled last time.
Alf Bentley Posted 17 February 2014 Posted 17 February 2014 Good point Alf , there might be some attempt at spoiling , but surely if the want revenue they'll avoid the clash of timing and hope viewers will switch from one to another in the same way Corry Eastenders and Emmerdale get staggered so as to form a seamless 2 hour stretch of mindless rubbish I really did try to watch BS a couple of times but i couldn't stick it out . edit; i don't think programme timing and scheduling is as important anymore with all the +1 channels and iplayers etc But the programmes do clash and are not staggered (deliberately, I assume)... Your last point is certainly a good one, but I bet that a hell of lot of people (particular older generations) stick with the old channels. No doubt a lot more in their 20s to 40s use +1 channels, I-players etc.
Zingari Posted 17 February 2014 Posted 17 February 2014 But the programmes do clash and are not staggered (deliberately, I assume)... Your last point is certainly a good one, but I bet that a hell of lot of people (particular older generations) stick with the old channels. No doubt a lot more in their 20s to 40s use +1 channels, I-players etc. Sorry i must be missing something obvious about the point you are making. Surely C5 would be best avoid the same time/day if was an attempt to get the same audience to watch and thereby reap in the extra viewing figures ( in the same way Emmerdale, Eastenders and Corry do their little paso doble throughout the night) This way the most they can expect is some of the BS audience to watch rather than stagger it and hope for a wholesale switch from one to t'other. Or is there some other cynical ploy that's gone right over my head ?
Vlad the Fox Posted 17 February 2014 Posted 17 February 2014 I don't think channel 4 need to worry about losing viewers to 5 after their last attempt.
Alf Bentley Posted 17 February 2014 Posted 17 February 2014 Sorry i must be missing something obvious about the point you are making. Surely C5 would be best avoid the same time/day if was an attempt to get the same audience to watch and thereby reap in the extra viewing figures ( in the same way Emmerdale, Eastenders and Corry do their little paso doble throughout the night) This way the most they can expect is some of the BS audience to watch rather than stagger it and hope for a wholesale switch from one to t'other. Or is there some other cynical ploy that's gone right over my head ? My points are fragmentary and not fully thought through, but.... - There is only limited flexibility in the total number of potential viewers and total TV advertising spend. So, if C4, a direct rival, broadcasts a series that attracts a lot of viewers, this may have a detrimental effect on C5 ratings and revenue. Benefits Street attracted more viewers to C4 than any programme in 2 years, according to the Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2543261/Benefits-Streets-parade-scroungers-drug-addicts-Channel-4-highest-ratings-2012.html - Ratings and revenues during peak viewing hours (mid-evening) are crucial and can't be compensated for at other times. - Some viewers are so lethargic that they'll just leave the TV on the same channel if they like a particular programme, so that channel will get higher viewing figures for subsequent programmes, too. Likewise, people may start to think that a particular channel has good programmes generally, so more will tune in on the off chance that a new programme might be good. - Just as supermarket chains need to react if a rival comes up with new products, prices or gimmicks that attract their customers, C5 and C4 are semi-direct competitors....OK, C4 mixes high-brow and populist programming, while C5 is firmly in the latter category, but C4 having a hit show with a high media profile is likely to be bad news for C5 and its revenues. - Staging a studio debate is very cheap TV to make (low cost filming, no need to pay audience, maybe no need to pay guests if they're politicians or others just seeking a higher profile) and can be set up quickly in response to a rival channel's successful series...schedule at same time as said series and you can protect your own position by not losing so many viewers or advertisers, while minimising the advantages accruing to your rival. Your implied question as to why Corrie, Emmerdale and Eastenders don't go head to head is interesting. Maybe all the channels feel that there's an important market (soaps) where there are enough viewers that they can all benefit without having to have the equivalent of a supermarket price war....so ITV get to boost their advertising revenue & BBC gets to justify its licence fee. Maybe, too, they think that the serious soap addicts would be pissed off if they couldn't see them all, but that there isn't a sufficient market/capability for them to fill the evening with soaps at the other channel's expense? Even if the C5 immigration debate is as bad as its benefits debate supposedly was (didn't see it myself), I bet it'll attract a fair number of people who enjoy that sort of Jeremy Kyle ranting - and who otherwise would have been ranting or laughing at the "scroungers" on Benefits Street. Though, personally, I think Benefits Street has been quite balanced, good quality TV.
bovril Posted 17 February 2014 Posted 17 February 2014 So after benefits and immigration, what's next week's debate on? Or are they the only ills in our society?
Rincewind Posted 17 February 2014 Posted 17 February 2014 Why didn't they show this side of the residents from the first week?
Captain... Posted 17 February 2014 Posted 17 February 2014 What's this "debate" where is the shouting over each other? Why is the host trying to control it? Fvck this I'm switching over to Channel 5.
pSinatra Posted 17 February 2014 Posted 17 February 2014 It would be a much better debate if White Dee & all her cronies weren't there applauding anything that justifies her bone idleness. I understand she may have 'issues', but no amount of investment or encouragement would see her working. She seems smug & wants to take the moral high ground......like she's a victim. There is more the government can do to help people on benefits, but I fail to see what she is doing to help herself.
Rincewind Posted 17 February 2014 Posted 17 February 2014 So White Dee does not want to become a MP and what she said was taken out of context because of the editing.
Captain... Posted 17 February 2014 Posted 17 February 2014 So White Dee does not want to become a MP and what she said was taken out of context because of the editing. Journalists suck eh Ken.
Rincewind Posted 17 February 2014 Posted 17 February 2014 Journalists suck eh Ken. Paid journalists do. Some of them. There was 18 months of filming cut down to four programmes so there was bound to be bits missing. Like they said the first programme was about drugs and thieving, the second migrants being exploited. It changed slightly after but the image had already been set.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.