The needs of others

[Moriarty]

Damn crazy, so much to address.

I will ask one simple question, why aren't these young people aware of the life they will lead?

 

[JaymiCB73]

Why not? I love a big cock waking me up at 4 in the morning and rolling around in mud.

Ha!

 

[hell2bwith76]

The economic boom of post war Britain is how you did it in the 50's & 60's. Loads of unskilled work, especially in the car, building and retail sectors and back then, you didn't need a CV and a long list of useless qualifications to serve tea and buns in a cafe. While I agree that the younger generations have higher expectations, so too do the employers.

Again when it comes to property standards. The younger generations have higher expectations and with higher expectations comes a high cost. Where I am, you can rent a fairly basic, needs a bit decor 2 bedroom terrace with a small garden for less than you can rent a one-bed flat with fitted white goods and newly decorated. Yet the one bed flat will get more views, because it looks nicer in the Instagram pics and no work is needed for it to get that way.
Yes there are unscrupulous landlords out there- there always has been. However, Landlords are regulated and so are rents, and councils prosecute landlords that let unsafe properties, but it is up to the tenant to complain to the council (and often, be persistent).

I also believe there's a deficit in understanding amongst most Private Rental tenants in that they rarely understand what they are signing when it comes to their tenancy agreement and accompanying paperwork. Furthermore, they don't have an understanding of their rights as tenants. During the past three generations, Private renting has become a necessity for many and yet understanding that kind of legal document and their rights are not taught in high school or college, and frankly I think it should be.

We may be on the wrong thread but in response to you :-- I remember that we left school aged 15( not 18/19/0r 21) and most children knew that if they were a girl they would be working in an office ; a boy in a factory .Not to much choice eh ?. We still made a life of it without the State providing us with various "carrots" to encourage us. No such thing Working Credit etc( ?)My opinion is that the ones who have given todays kids these dreams are NOT the baby boomers but the generation today who are in their 40`s to 60`s ! Now you can hack me down My neighbours on on side have a 18month old child . Been at "free" Nursery since she was 1 so they could work or sunbathe ,no sure quite which ! other side never seem to have their children either but their parents do !( i.e. The old grannies !).
We`ll see how it pans out.

 

[CrazyCatLady]

We may be on the wrong thread but in response to you :-- I remember that we left school aged 15( not 18/19/0r 21) and most children knew that if they were a girl they would be working in an office ; a boy in a factory .Not to much choice eh ?. We still made a life of it without the State providing us with various "carrots" to encourage us. No such thing Working Credit etc( ?)My opinion is that the ones who have given todays kids these dreams are NOT the baby boomers but the generation today who are in their 40`s to 60`s ! Now you can hack me down My neighbours on on side have a 18month old child . Been at "free" Nursery since she was 1 so they could work or sunbathe ,no sure quite which ! other side never seem to have their children either but their parents do !( i.e. The old grannies !).
We`ll see how it pans out.

You must have been higher-lower class, if your women got to work in a posh office, because my first full-time job was in a factory And office work was classed as 'skilled' work for a woman. They had to pass an exam to even get on to a secretarial course in those days (without which, she wouldn't be employed by a reputable company) and if you didn't have the right voice and manner, forget getting a job as a Receptionist.
I don't think the blame can be necessarily put at the door of a particular generations parents, but instead at the door of modernisation and globalisation; changes in family structure and the wider expectations of what is considered the 'norm' these days.
I could elaborate, but as you say at the beginning of your comment- this may not be the thread.

Btw, I may not be of the generation you think I am

 

[hell2bwith76]

You must have been higher-lower class, if your women got to work in a posh office, because my first full-time job was in a factory And office work was classed as 'skilled' work for a woman. They had to pass an exam to even get on to a secretarial course in those days (without which, she wouldn't be employed by a reputable company) and if you didn't have the right voice and manner, forget getting a job as a Receptionist.
I don't think the blame can be necessarily put at the door of a particular generations parents, but instead at the door of modernisation and globalisation; changes in family structure and the wider expectations of what is considered the 'norm' these days.
I could elaborate, but as you say at the beginning of your comment- this may not be the thread.

Btw, I may not be of the generation you think I am

I must correct you on your asessement of the "class " of girl or boy who would get a job in an office in the 1950`s.You are entirely wrong ! Ofice work was quite mundaine and didn`t require a Uni Degree for anyone to operate a punchcard machine ( which was like a modern computer !). Plus i don`t think you could class an establishment like the NFU "unreputable". A top notch Insurance Company ? still is today ...you don`t seem to be reading the right books . It`s no wonder people are blaming the post war generation for all of todays problems if they think as you do.There was no "economic boom " after WW2 ! there was a recession ,geeeez ! We were in deep debt .
I`ll leave you to do a proper check on the State of the Economy post 1945 (to about 1970)

 

[supercookie123]

Why not? I love a big cock waking me up at 4 in the morning and rolling around in mud.

You know, you make a very good point! Ha ha ha

I just have a fat vet bill atm...

 

[supercookie123]

Depending on how much I won I would first open a home for abused children.
Then if I had enough I would open a home for abused dogs.

Both love unconditionally and yet are abused to often, both need support and a place to be safe.

Please can I help out at your bit for the dogs? Not straight away, of course - I'd cry if I saw them in their original state. Spruce them up a bit, then
I'll be there, with my shovel and packs of Markies!

 

[supercookie123]

S

I must correct you on your asessement of the "class " of girl or boy who would get a job in an office in the 1950`s.You are entirely wrong ! Ofice work was quite mundaine and didn`t require a Uni Degree for anyone to operate a punchcard machine ( which was like a modern computer !). Plus i don`t think you could class an establishment like the NFU "unreputable". A top notch Insurance Company ? still is today ...you don`t seem to be reading the right books . It`s no wonder people are blaming the post war generation for all of todays problems if they think as you do.There was no "economic boom " after WW2 ! there was a recession ,geeeez ! We were in deep debt .
I`ll leave you to do a proper check on the State of the Economy post 1945 (to about 1970)

Spiky.

 

[hell2bwith76]

I wouldn't give to charity, simply because most charities don't work.

I used to give to quite a few, I stopped a few yrs ago, when I woke up to how the money was being spent.

A huge part of the money they rake in is usually spent on paying people's wages and creating buildings in which these people work.
Very few do voluntary work.
Many who claim to do voluntary work are usually paid for it behind the scenes, I know this for a fact.

I would however create my own charities for children in need, women who flee from domestic abuse, the homeless, rehab centre for substance users/alcoholics, an animal shelter for cats and dogs, possibly sanctuaries for other sorts of abused animals.
I would spend a lot of time there to make sure that the people who work for me are doing things right.

I don't trust people much, sorry.

When i casually mentioned what a friend had told me about the school; she worked for and the food which was given by a certain Supermarket being also taken by teachers i was blasted out of the page !. It was also maintained that to get proper management for any global charity a huge salary has to be paid to them . Again i disagree with this and was slayed for that !.
Can i express that i`m not suggesting that any of the Charity workers are thieves but they do get some sort of payoff for their "voluntary" work. An example is Oxfam workers who ,quite obviously ,get 1st look at any clothes which are donated for charity and thus 1st chance to buy them at a lower than odds cost.

Wait for the eruption now !

 

[VeiledStranger]

I'd set up a children's charity with the intention of helping youngsters faced with war and poverty. I'd also buy a sloth sanctuary because those things are so damn cute. Enough money to sort out my family members and perhaps a Lamborghini for myself. Done.

 

[Moriarty]

You must have been higher-lower class, if your women got to work in a posh office, because my first full-time job was in a factory And office work was classed as 'skilled' work for a woman. They had to pass an exam to even get on to a secretarial course in those days (without which, she wouldn't be employed by a reputable company) and if you didn't have the right voice and manner, forget getting a job as a Receptionist.
I don't think the blame can be necessarily put at the door of a particular generations parents, but instead at the door of modernisation and globalisation; changes in family structure and the wider expectations of what is considered the 'norm' these days.
I could elaborate, but as you say at the beginning of your comment- this may not be the thread.

Btw, I may not be of the generation you think I am

At least someone gets it.

Economics 101, the more workers or infrastructure you need to serve customers, the less profit you make.
Hence the UK became service/high tech industry based, not low tech manufacturing.
Except things like cars which are cheaper to build here from parts made elsewhere due to the vagaries of import taxation.
Hence we need a more knowledgeable population, which is why Uni is almost mandatory.

Also why young people are screwed, with an older working age with more experience, young people have fewer fields to learn trades.
It's a much more complex than problem than "Rich people should pay more taxes", then you just get capital flight.

Post not aimed at you Crazy lol.. you seem to get it

 

[CrazyCatLady]

I must correct you on your asessement of the "class " of girl or boy who would get a job in an office in the 1950`s.You are entirely wrong ! Ofice work was quite mundaine and didn`t require a Uni Degree for anyone to operate a punchcard machine ( which was like a modern computer !). Plus i don`t think you could class an establishment like the NFU "unreputable". A top notch Insurance Company ? still is today ...you don`t seem to be reading the right books . It`s no wonder people are blaming the post war generation for all of todays problems if they think as you do.There was no "economic boom " after WW2 ! there was a recession ,geeeez ! We were in deep debt .
I`ll leave you to do a proper check on the State of the Economy post 1945 (to about 1970)

Firstly, hell, I have to laugh at you describing a punch card to me. I had to use one in every single factory I worked in from age 15 to 23. And they more like hole punchers inserted in to a massive clock than a modern computer!

Secondly, I understand that office work did not require a uni degree- it still doesn’t. However, it did require school leavers exams- at one point, CSE’s, which someone in an office would have been required to have. A certain standard of education would have been expected of the girls working in an office- no matter what the company was- as they would have been dealing with information and documents required of someone with a good ability to read, write and perform simple mathematics. A girl from a family where she was expected to leave to school at 14 to look after siblings and/or seek unskilled work in order to support the family would not necessarily have had the education to meet those standards. That’s not to say they didn’t go into that kind of work, but there would have been more opportunities of work taken in the labour trades, such as factories, food production and service work.

Furthermore, I wonder why you have to correct me on my view of class. I feel you don’t necessarily take in to consideration the whole spectrum of class and perhaps have a shallow view of the diversity of groups the classes contain. I did state you must have been higher-lower class, so do you have an understanding of what it means to be a step below yourself?

To place my explanation into today’s climate, you have lower class, which includes those on a basic wage or around that. Effectively, working- class with just enough to live off; possible debt and living to make ends meet. They work for what they have, but have little opportunity to move further up without further opportunities. Income is regular, but unstable- depends on individual’s job retention and company stability. Unlikely to own property or will achieve ownership of lower-end property. Majority will privately rent. Education level- irrelevant.

However, there exists a sub-group of lower-class. Those on benefits or those in part-time work and on partial benefits, through either disability/illness or inability to work for various reasons.
In the 50’s and 60’s, I respect that the classes may have looked very different, but you still had levels within the classes, especially with education and employment.

Perhaps my wording was incorrect and I shouldn’t have said ‘Post war’ when I meant the late 50’s and 60’s- a good 10-15 years after the war, when the standards of living and education WERE increasing and jobs were so plentiful that the UK had to advertise for the Windrush generation to come over. And there we have another class- the lower than holes in your shoes and calluses on your hands class. My family came over to the UK in the Windrush and while there may have been ‘deep debt’; the true assessment of a countries finances are by the standards of living and employment rate of the working class and rates of consumerism- all of which were healthy and increasing during that era.

We are always in ‘deep debt’- debt is the core cog of the financial system.

 

[hell2bwith76]

At least someone gets it.

Economics 101, the more workers or infrastructure you need to serve customers, the less profit you make.
Hence the UK became service/high tech industry based, not low tech manufacturing.
Except things like cars which are cheaper to build here from parts made elsewhere due to the vagaries of import taxation.
Hence we need a more knowledgeable population, which is why Uni is almost mandatory.

Also why young people are screwed, with an older working age with more experience, young people have fewer fields to learn trades.
It's a much more complex than problem than "Rich people should pay more taxes", then you just get capital flight.

Post not aimed at you Crazy lol.. you seem to get it

Exactly what does "service /high tech " mean ?
Only people who are clever should be going to Uni anyway !.Surely that`s the idea of getting grades in the earlier age groups ?.
They then leave Uni to become "service " worker ? whatever that is or a "high tech " whatever that means ?.
Forgive me ,i`m not Uni material .

 

[hell2bwith76]

Firstly, hell, I have to laugh at you describing a punch card to me. I had to use one in every single factory I worked in from age 15 to 23. And they more like hole punchers inserted in to a massive clock than a modern computer!

Secondly, I understand that office work did not require a uni degree- it still doesn’t. However, it did require school leavers exams- at one point, CSE’s, which someone in an office would have been required to have. A certain standard of education would have been expected of the girls working in an office- no matter what the company was- as they would have been dealing with information and documents required of someone with a good ability to read, write and perform simple mathematics. A girl from a family where she was expected to leave to school at 14 to look after siblings and/or seek unskilled work in order to support the family would not necessarily have had the education to meet those standards. That’s not to say they didn’t go into that kind of work, but there would have been more opportunities of work taken in the labour trades, such as factories, food production and service work.

Furthermore, I wonder why you have to correct me on my view of class. I feel you don’t necessarily take in to consideration the whole spectrum of class and perhaps have a shallow view of the diversity of groups the classes contain. I did state you must have been higher-lower class, so do you have an understanding of what it means to be a step below yourself?

To place my explanation into today’s climate, you have lower class, which includes those on a basic wage or around that. Effectively, working- class with just enough to live off; possible debt and living to make ends meet. They work for what they have, but have little opportunity to move further up without further opportunities. Income is regular, but unstable- depends on individual’s job retention and company stability. Unlikely to own property or will achieve ownership of lower-end property. Majority will privately rent. Education level- irrelevant.

However, there exists a sub-group of lower-class. Those on benefits or those in part-time work and on partial benefits, through either disability/illness or inability to work for various reasons.
In the 50’s and 60’s, I respect that the classes may have looked very different, but you still had levels within the classes, especially with education and employment.

Perhaps my wording was incorrect and I shouldn’t have said ‘Post war’ when I meant the late 50’s and 60’s- a good 10-15 years after the war, when the standards of living and education WERE increasing and jobs were so plentiful that the UK had to advertise for the Windrush generation to come over. And there we have another class- the lower than holes in your shoes and calluses on your hands class. My family came over to the UK in the Windrush and while there may have been ‘deep debt’; the true assessment of a countries finances are by the standards of living and employment rate of the working class and rates of consumerism- all of which were healthy and increasing during that era.

We are always in ‘deep debt’- debt is the core cog of the financial system.

Once more i need to correct you about CSE`s in the 1950`s .They never existed ! I think you are at least 10 years out of your knowledge about work and education. Any standards in Education and working conditions were hard gained by Trade Unions fighting to get better rights until Maggie put a stop to that . I once worked in a factory (1960`s) and we went on strike for women to get equal pay . The strange thing was the women didn`t go on strike,just the males. I don`t think they were given "equal" pay but they did get good pay rises for that time .
In the 1950`s & 1960`s i know for sure that only 2 classes of education existed . Secondary & Grammar. That was it ! To get the grammar education you had to pass the 11 plus (even then !" but kids who had wealthy parents could get in privately of course.

Ranting on about class /sub class/ sub sub class and high /low subclass is just talking with big words as if it makes one feel Highly intelligent.
It`s all rubbish .

 

[CrazyCatLady]

Exactly what does "service /high tech " mean ?
Only people who are clever should be going to Uni anyway !.Surely that`s the idea of getting grades in the earlier age groups ?.
They then leave Uni to become "service " worker ? whatever that is or a "high tech " whatever that means ?.
Forgive me ,i`m not Uni material .

Oh, hell, I’m sure I would love you in real life and want to listen to stories of the ‘50’s and ‘60’s all day long, but I have to disagree with a fair bit- especially on your ‘Only people who are clever should be going to uni anyway!...’ comment.

Firstly, what is your perception of being ‘clever’? Intelligence is more complicated than grades and individuals learn in different ways- hence, why schools now-a-days are more inclusive in the way they teach. Not every human can demonstrate their abilities through an exam or written assessment, but it doesn’t mean they lack in intelligence or ability.
Why should a university education be discriminative? Are you under the assumption that universities only deliver degrees, masters and doctorates? There is a whole host of further educational courses, such as diplomas and teaching courses- many of which will have practical elements attached, such as workplace training. Universities are educational establishments and should not discriminate on ability, demographics, financial means or learning style- just as schools don’t.

Believe me, many people leave university to become a service worker! In fact, many (especially those from music and media courses) end up in call centres, food & beverage service and as cleaning operatives. After all, they will still have loans to pay off- especially if they are of the lower classes!

 

[CrazyCatLady]

Once more i need to correct you about CSE`s in the 1950`s .They never existed ! I think you are at least 10 years out of your knowledge about work and education. Any standards in Education and working conditions were hard gained by Trade Unions fighting to get better rights until Maggie put a stop to that . I once worked in a factory (1960`s) and we went on strike for women to get equal pay . The strange thing was the women didn`t go on strike,just the males. I don`t think they were given "equal" pay but they did get good pay rises for that time .
In the 1950`s & 1960`s i know for sure that only 2 classes of education existed . Secondary & Grammar. That was it ! To get the grammar education you had to pass the 11 plus (even then !" but kids who had wealthy parents could get in privately of course.

Ranting on about class /sub class/ sub sub class and high /low subclass is just talking with big words as if it makes one feel Highly intelligent.
It`s all rubbish .

Lol. It's really too late to argue with your first paragraph and on examination, I may not be able to. I don't know, because I've been writing up legal meetings all day and I cannot stomach any more 'debate'.

Your last part though- Honestly I don't need to rant on with big words to feel intelligent- I AM intelligent and your slant is an emotional reaction to being told information you thought you knew.

FYI, I am university educated; from a lower-class immigrant family and didn't finish high school, due to an unstable childhood and home life, and mental health problems. I had to re-do my high school education as an adult (as a single-parent of a young child), due to unofficially leaving school at 14 to help financially support my mother, after the death of my step-father. If there were restrictions on a university education, I would not have been able to achieve a top-class degree and represent my university at the British Psychological Awards; become a Researcher, supporting research into education and do the role I am doing now.

Believe me, I've earned my right to feel and demonstrate my intelligence.

 

[SamBally]

Just adding my 10p worth.

University doesn't necessarily mean "intelligence". Traditional trades applying skills perfected over 100s of years of trial and error arguably require more intelligence. The ability to churn out essays is a taught skill and I would argue anyone with the right tools can learn that skill. The most difficult part is the reading and only because of the time commitment required which requires discipline and making the right choice of material appropriate to the subject.

Although it is slowly changing for the better it is a demonstrable FACT that elite universities are more likely to accept someone who has been privately educated, the 7%, than someone from a bog-standard school and who might have higher grades. The 7% dominate the top professions and both the education sector and society as a whole is still riddled with 'class' prejudice and bias in favour of the privileged minority.


Kiss Kiss.

 

[Moriarty]

Hells.
10% of the population have an IQ of less than 83, which according to the US army, who have studied IQ for over 50 years, is detrimental to a unit.

Now apply that to society as a whole.

We can talk about whatever racial, gender, sexual orientation, pay, group, or whatever imbalance anyone wants to play with.

But when you have 10% of your population, through no choice of their own, can only be a burden on society, how do you address that.

BTW for any SJW's in the room, who have singularly not addressed this.
If I have caused offence, I don't care, this is what real life looks like.

It's a conversation we need to have but wont.

 

[Moriarty]

Just adding my 10p worth.

University doesn't necessarily mean "intelligence". Traditional trades applying skills perfected over 100s of years of trial and error arguably require more intelligence. The ability to churn out essays is a taught skill and I would argue anyone with the right tools can learn that skill. The most difficult part is the reading and only because of the time commitment required which requires discipline and making the right choice of material appropriate to the subject.

Although it is slowly changing for the better it is a demonstrable FACT that elite universities are more likely to accept someone who has been privately educated, the 7%, than someone from a bog-standard school and who might have higher grades. The 7% dominate the top professions and both the education sector and society as a whole is still riddled with 'class' prejudice and bias in favour of the privileged minority.


Kiss Kiss.

Education and IQ have a tenuous link recently.

In the past I would link the two, but now education until 18 is mandatory in the UK due to lack of trade skill jobs, we are limiting those with higher intelligence to "equalise" education.

Just my opinion ..

 

[SamBally]

Oh, and my IQ was measured so low it didn't register. I still got off my lazy arse and got a degree in my 30s.


Kiss kiss.