UKMT May 2021 - Change the things that need changing and that is the change we will bring about

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT May 2021 - Change the things that need changing and that is the change we will bring about

«‹›158 »

Failed Imagineer: Sep 22, 2018

Thassa top notch posting there, a welcome corrective to the last couple pages

# ? May 12, 2021 11:30

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2024 15:51

Josef bugman: Nov 17, 2011; Pictured: Poster prepares to celebrate Holy Communion (probablY)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

Necrothatcher posted:

live footage from inside Labour HQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP2JPwbtq0g

Might I raise you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpKN-U1-bWk

Also, sometimes I do feel a little cross when my housemates talk about "only" earning 25,000 a year, whilst I am here on about 18,000 for the last 2 years and was on 15,000 for the 7 years before that in London.

Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 11:38 on May 12, 2021

# ? May 12, 2021 11:31

Jel Shaker: Apr 19, 2003

OwlFancier posted:

Spen is probably a river, Batley is a town. So given it's west yorkshire probably scandinavians.

towns with ley at the end are usually viking in origin to denote field or meadow

other cool names are moor which means wasteland and burn which means stream

# ? May 12, 2021 11:34

StarkingBarfish: Jun 25, 2006; Novus Ordo Seclorum

big scary monsters posted:

A starting salary of �82k would put those senior doctors in the top 5% in the UK by income¹, so I can see why people might feel unsympathetic. But the income curve is so skewed at the top, so asymptotic, that I thought it might be illustrative to remind ourselves of how income is distributed in the UK and put doctors into perspective.

The top 10% of earners (income over ~�43k in 2015)² feel basically like normal folk and I imagine there are quite a few posting ITT. The top 1% (over ~�130k) are obviously raking it from the perspective of most of us, but the majority are also still workers in the sense that their money comes mainly from their employers. The fine folk of the top 1% pay about 30% of HMRC's income tax revenues, around the same portion as the 90-99% bracket . Even then you're "only" making a quarter of the top 0.1% (~�520k): the relative difference between someone on minimum wage and a senior doc. The richest 0.1% also control 10% of the country's wealth, so you know we're getting into serious capitalist territory here, basically nobody is getting this just as a pay cheque. Once you get onto the lofty heights of the top 0.01% (who are ~5500 people getting over �2.2m) income quadruples again and from their perspective the difference between �12k and �100k is basically nothing. It's hard to go up another order of magnitude to the richest 0.001%, because you're looking at individual people rather than statistics and they really don't like their finances being inspected. In any case it doesn't make much sense to talk about their income in the usual way because whether they gain �10m or lose �50m is basically reliant on random fluctuations of the market and in any case it doesn't much matter to them - to break the top 500 wealthiest (not the same as highest income but I can't find those numbers) UK people you have to have over �250m stashed away³.

All that is to say that sure, earning gently caress all and choosing between dinner and heat obviously feels very, very different to being a doc with a nice house in Zone 2 and a cottage in the Lakes. But the very top control so much wealth and take so much of the nation's productivity for themselves just for owning stuff that having a go at some guy who actually works for a living is pointless - to those on the top plane of income we all look like loving ants and they lend us about as much consideration. If some awful, awful catastrophe were to befall the top 0.1% basically no actual useful work would stop getting done - they'd all fit into the stands of a good sized football stadium like Anfield, remember, or onto the pitch in any standard sized grounds in the country. But we could all take a nice pay rise to console ourselves during the period of national mourning. I can't figure out exactly how much, but it seems like something on the order of another 25% of the total national salaries to divvy up as we choose. And since all that poo poo they own would still be around, like houses and factories and whatnot, I reckon we could find good use to put that stuff to as well. Much as it's frustrating reading about the out-of-touch opinions of the moderately well off in the lifestyle pages of the Guardian or among the Twitterati, it should be clear who the folk are to really have a go at.

_{1 Office of National Statistics: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points-from-1-to-99-for-total-income-before-and-after-tax}
_{2 All these numbers are from a 2019 Essex Uni Institute for Economic and Social Research study: https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/research/publications/working-papers/iser/2019-06.pdf, their numbers are derived from HMRC and ONS. Obviously it's a few years old, but then income inequailty has only increased since.}
_{3 Times rich list, you can look it up yourself.}

This shouldn't be left sitting on the last page. It's a very Good Post.

e: I also like the idea of dumping the ultra rich all in anfield and locking the doors.

# ? May 12, 2021 11:39

Jaeluni Asjil: Apr 18, 2018; Sorry I thought you were a landlord when I gave you your old avatar!

OwlFancier posted:

Who's trevor phillips and sara khan? Other than the insane creepy guy from GTA 5 who I would't actually be surprised that tony likes.

Trevor Phillips used to be NUS president back when I were a wee lassie at uni. He used to sit in the ULU bar wearing dreadlocks.
Now I can't find any photos of him in dreads. Mind you that was around 1978-1981 before cameras were invented (JOKE)

# ? May 12, 2021 11:42

Jaeluni Asjil: Apr 18, 2018; Sorry I thought you were a landlord when I gave you your old avatar!

u brexit ukip it posted:

Jo Cox' sister is now rumoured to be standing for the seat for Labour.

Didn't her husband stand at one point but then the press found some misdemeanour to tear him down by? Can't be bothered to google as a visit from mother is looming in the very near future like 5 mins.

# ? May 12, 2021 11:44

Microplastics: Jul 6, 2007; It's what's for dinner.

big scary monsters posted:

A starting salary of £82k would put those senior doctors in the top 5% in the UK by income¹, so I can see why people might feel unsympathetic. But the income curve is so skewed at the top, so asymptotic, that I thought it might be illustrative to remind ourselves of how income is distributed in the UK and put doctors into perspective.

The top 10% of earners (income over ~£43k in 2015)² feel basically like normal folk and I imagine there are quite a few posting ITT. The top 1% (over ~£130k) are obviously raking it from the perspective of most of us, but the majority are also still workers in the sense that their money comes mainly from their employers. The fine folk of the top 1% pay about 30% of HMRC's income tax revenues, around the same portion as the 90-99% bracket . Even then you're "only" making a quarter of the top 0.1% (~£520k): the relative difference between someone on minimum wage and a senior doc. The richest 0.1% also control 10% of the country's wealth, so you know we're getting into serious capitalist territory here, basically nobody is getting this just as a pay cheque. Once you get onto the lofty heights of the top 0.01% (who are ~5500 people getting over £2.2m) income quadruples again and from their perspective the difference between £12k and £100k is basically nothing. It's hard to go up another order of magnitude to the richest 0.001%, because you're looking at individual people rather than statistics and they really don't like their finances being inspected. In any case it doesn't make much sense to talk about their income in the usual way because whether they gain £10m or lose £50m is basically reliant on random fluctuations of the market and in any case it doesn't much matter to them - to break the top 500 wealthiest (not the same as highest income but I can't find those numbers) UK people you have to have over £250m stashed away³.

All that is to say that sure, earning gently caress all and choosing between dinner and heat obviously feels very, very different to being a doc with a nice house in Zone 2 and a cottage in the Lakes. But the very top control so much wealth and take so much of the nation's productivity for themselves just for owning stuff that having a go at some guy who actually works for a living is pointless - to those on the top plane of income we all look like loving ants and they lend us about as much consideration. If some awful, awful catastrophe were to befall the top 0.1% basically no actual useful work would stop getting done - they'd all fit into the stands of a good sized football stadium like Anfield, remember, or onto the pitch in any standard sized grounds in the country. But we could all take a nice pay rise to console ourselves during the period of national mourning. I can't figure out exactly how much, but it seems like something on the order of another 25% of the total national salaries to divvy up as we choose. And since all that poo poo they own would still be around, like houses and factories and whatnot, I reckon we could find good use to put that stuff to as well. Much as it's frustrating reading about the out-of-touch opinions of the moderately well off in the lifestyle pages of the Guardian or among the Twitterati, it should be clear who the folk are to really have a go at.

_{1 Office of National Statistics: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points-from-1-to-99-for-total-income-before-and-after-tax}
_{2 All these numbers are from a 2019 Essex Uni Institute for Economic and Social Research study: https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/research/publications/working-papers/iser/2019-06.pdf, their numbers are derived from HMRC and ONS. Obviously it's a few years old, but then income inequailty has only increased since.}
_{3 Times rich list, you can look it up yourself.}

An excellent post and I'd like to add (because I didn't see it mentioned) that doctors are responsible for people's lives and small mistakes could put them in jail. A hefty renumeration seems reasonable in this context.

Whenever someone goes off on one about tube drivers I use the same argument. Actually I earn about the same as a tube driver but I get the luxury of taking a 5 minute break whenever I want without killing 80 people. Tube drivers probably ought to get more.

# ? May 12, 2021 11:45

Microplastics: Jul 6, 2007; It's what's for dinner.

Jel Shaker posted:

towns with ley at the end are usually viking in origin to denote field or meadow

other cool names are moor which means wasteland and burn which means stream

Andy Streamman

# ? May 12, 2021 11:46

Total Meatlove: Jan 28, 2007; Rangers died, shoujo Hitler cried ;_;

Jaeluni Asjil posted:

Didn't her husband stand at one point but then the press found some misdemeanour to tear him down by? Can't be bothered to google as a visit from mother is looming in the very near future like 5 mins.

He�s a danger

# ? May 12, 2021 11:47

Lungboy: Aug 23, 2002; NEED SQUAT FORM HELP

Comrade Fakename posted:

Burnham is a mayor and not an MP so can't be leader (well, I think that technically he can but it's extremely unlikely the PLP would go for it). And he literally just won an election less than a week ago so it would look really bad if he quit and got himself installed in a safe seat or something. His leadership ambitions are very real, but more long term. Maybe if Keith is still leader at the next election (questionable) and then he loses (likely) he'll try it then.

From a few pages back but Labour rules state the leader must be taken from the Commons.

# ? May 12, 2021 11:49

Doccykins: Feb 21, 2006

Reveilled posted:

For what it's worth, I'm fairly sure the Paul Williams thing was just a joke by a twitter random making fun of Starmer.

oh lol I absolutely fell for this hook line and sinker

in other news, you can be earning �157k a year + expenses and still not have the means or will to pay a �535 County Court Judgement

https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1392410163190108162

# ? May 12, 2021 11:55

Failed Imagineer: Sep 22, 2018

JeremoudCorbynejad posted:

renumeration

Remuneration

# ? May 12, 2021 12:03

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

We went and did a whole extra bonus episode on Saturday for two reasons: first, to laugh at Labour and the Kieth Kollapse, but also because one of us has been working under contract for the Northern Independence Party!

So if you're interested in the inside view about the NIP, where is goes next, and whether there is actual Praxis in this here podcast?

https://twitter.com/PraxisCast/status/1392436677294034945?s=20

Next one should be out tomorrow already.

# ? May 12, 2021 12:15

Private Speech: Mar 30, 2011; I HAVE EVEN MORE WORTHLESS BEANIE BABIES IN MY COLLECTION THAN I HAVE WORTHLESS POSTS IN THE BEANIE BABY THREAD YET I STILL HAVE THE TEMERITY TO CRITICIZE OTHERS' COLLECTIONS

IF YOU SEE ME TALKING ABOUT BEANIE BABIES, PLEASE TELL ME TO

EAT. SHIT.

big scary monsters posted:

A starting salary of �82k would put those senior doctors in the top 5% in the UK by income¹, so I can see why people might feel unsympathetic. But the income curve is so skewed at the top, so asymptotic, that I thought it might be illustrative to remind ourselves of how income is distributed in the UK and put doctors into perspective.

The top 10% of earners (income over ~�43k in 2015)² feel basically like normal folk and I imagine there are quite a few posting ITT. The top 1% (over ~�130k) are obviously raking it from the perspective of most of us, but the majority are also still workers in the sense that their money comes mainly from their employers. The fine folk of the top 1% pay about 30% of HMRC's income tax revenues, around the same portion as the 90-99% bracket . Even then you're "only" making a quarter of the top 0.1% (~�520k): the relative difference between someone on minimum wage and a senior doc. The richest 0.1% also control 10% of the country's wealth, so you know we're getting into serious capitalist territory here, basically nobody is getting this just as a pay cheque. Once you get onto the lofty heights of the top 0.01% (who are ~5500 people getting over �2.2m) income quadruples again and from their perspective the difference between �12k and �100k is basically nothing. It's hard to go up another order of magnitude to the richest 0.001%, because you're looking at individual people rather than statistics and they really don't like their finances being inspected. In any case it doesn't make much sense to talk about their income in the usual way because whether they gain �10m or lose �50m is basically reliant on random fluctuations of the market and in any case it doesn't much matter to them - to break the top 500 wealthiest (not the same as highest income but I can't find those numbers) UK people you have to have over �250m stashed away³.

All that is to say that sure, earning gently caress all and choosing between dinner and heat obviously feels very, very different to being a doc with a nice house in Zone 2 and a cottage in the Lakes. But the very top control so much wealth and take so much of the nation's productivity for themselves just for owning stuff that having a go at some guy who actually works for a living is pointless - to those on the top plane of income we all look like loving ants and they lend us about as much consideration. If some awful, awful catastrophe were to befall the top 0.1% basically no actual useful work would stop getting done - they'd all fit into the stands of a good sized football stadium like Anfield, remember, or onto the pitch in any standard sized grounds in the country. But we could all take a nice pay rise to console ourselves during the period of national mourning. I can't figure out exactly how much, but it seems like something on the order of another 25% of the total national salaries to divvy up as we choose. And since all that poo poo they own would still be around, like houses and factories and whatnot, I reckon we could find good use to put that stuff to as well. Much as it's frustrating reading about the out-of-touch opinions of the moderately well off in the lifestyle pages of the Guardian or among the Twitterati, it should be clear who the folk are to really have a go at.

_{1 Office of National Statistics: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points-from-1-to-99-for-total-income-before-and-after-tax}
_{2 All these numbers are from a 2019 Essex Uni Institute for Economic and Social Research study: https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/research/publications/working-papers/iser/2019-06.pdf, their numbers are derived from HMRC and ONS. Obviously it's a few years old, but then income inequailty has only increased since.}
_{3 Times rich list, you can look it up yourself.}

It's worth noting the �43k is after tax, the corresponding figure for before tax is �53.1k in 2015.

# ? May 12, 2021 12:20

big scary monsters: Sep 2, 2011; -~Ｓｋｕｌｌｗａｖｅ~-

JeremoudCorbynejad posted:

An excellent post and I'd like to add (because I didn't see it mentioned) that doctors are responsible for people's lives and small mistakes could put them in jail. A hefty renumeration seems reasonable in this context.

Whenever someone goes off on one about tube drivers I use the same argument. Actually I earn about the same as a tube driver but I get the luxury of taking a 5 minute break whenever I want without killing 80 people. Tube drivers probably ought to get more.

Yeah that's an additional wrinkle. In theory that's also part of the justification for the ridiculous compensation packages we see for CEOs - "I'm responsible for the welfare of 5000 employees so of course it's only right I make as much as any 100 of them put together." Of course CEOs aren't typically held criminally liable for their failures and just move on to another similar position when their decisions leave those 5000 employees out of work or lead to deaths.

I don't entirely like the argument from responsibility or effort, although I think it has some use in pointing out the absurdity of the arguments used to justify wage inequality. If you take a cleaner doing 50 hours a week wiping poo poo off public toilets it's pretty difficult to argue that they're working less hard than someone in the spreadsheet factory, and yet they're being paid a third as much. Excel monkey isn't really a more skilled job and it doesn't usually come with much responsibility, but it does often require a degree and being "the right kind of person", from which you can draw your own conclusions.

Ultimately I'd rather go with the rationale that everyone should have enough to live comfortably, whatever we decide that means, and nobody should have so much that it bends space and time around them to their will. I think that's a moral good, but it's not just a matter of fairness. It's also that having an underclass in poverty is clearly and measurably harmful to the kind of society most people want (even while it's extremely profitable to capital), and the immense, undemocratic, unaccountable power that comes from great wealth is similarly incredibly harmful to all of us.

Private Speech posted:

It's worth noting the �43k is after tax, the corresponding figure for before tax is �53.1k in 2015.

The paper does say it's before-tax income (bottom of page 7), but I also looked at a study from the Institute for Fiscal Studies where the numbers were all somewhat higher and in line with your figure. I don't have the raw data so I can't say for sure which is right.

big scary monsters fucked around with this message at 12:24 on May 12, 2021

# ? May 12, 2021 12:20

Chubby Henparty: Aug 13, 2007

Junior G-man posted:

We went and did a whole extra bonus episode on Saturday for two reasons: first, to laugh at Labour and the Kieth Kollapse, but also because one of us has been working under contract for the Northern Independence Party!

This was good thanks. When was the WDTATW crossover? I'm dumb and can't see it on either listing

# ? May 12, 2021 12:22

Communist Thoughts: Jan 7, 2008; Our war against free speech cannot end until we silence this bronze beast!

Didn't NIP implode?

# ? May 12, 2021 12:23

Jedit: Dec 10, 2011; Proudly supporting vanilla legends 1994-2014

Junior G-man posted:

We went and did a whole extra bonus episode on Saturday for two reasons: first, to laugh at Labour and the Kieth Kollapse, but also because one of us has been working under contract for the Northern Independence Party!

So if you're interested in the inside view about the NIP, where is goes next, and whether there is actual Praxis in this here podcast?

https://twitter.com/PraxisCast/status/1392436677294034945?s=20

Next one should be out tomorrow already.

Er, was it intentional to equate the Labour Party with the KKK?

# ? May 12, 2021 12:26

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

Chubby Henparty posted:

This was good thanks. When was the WDTATW crossover? I'm dumb and can't see it on either listing

It's episode 76 - London's Special Guy

# ? May 12, 2021 12:27

Microplastics: Jul 6, 2007; It's what's for dinner.

Failed Imagineer posted:

Remuneration

Dammit I always get that wrong

# ? May 12, 2021 12:28

Grey Hunter: Oct 17, 2007; Hero of the soviet union.
Accidental destroyer of planets

Doccykins posted:

oh lol I absolutely fell for this hook line and sinker

in other news, you can be earning �157k a year + expenses and still not have the means or will to pay a �535 County Court Judgement

https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1392410163190108162

I would watch the hell out of an episode of "Can't Pay, Take it away" where they raid No 10.

# ? May 12, 2021 12:28

Private Speech: Mar 30, 2011; I HAVE EVEN MORE WORTHLESS BEANIE BABIES IN MY COLLECTION THAN I HAVE WORTHLESS POSTS IN THE BEANIE BABY THREAD YET I STILL HAVE THE TEMERITY TO CRITICIZE OTHERS' COLLECTIONS

IF YOU SEE ME TALKING ABOUT BEANIE BABIES, PLEASE TELL ME TO

EAT. SHIT.

big scary monsters posted:

The paper does say it's before-tax income (bottom of page 7), but I also looked at a study from the Institute for Fiscal Studies where the numbers were all somewhat higher and in line with your figure. I don't have the raw data so I can't say for sure which is right.

I was going by: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points-from-1-to-99-for-total-income-before-and-after-tax, which corresponds to the figure for after tax 2015, with before-tax being the 53k.

# ? May 12, 2021 12:31

Fumble: Sep 4, 2006; Can't post for 16 days!

Grey Hunter posted:

I would watch the hell out of an episode of "Can't Pay, Take it away" where they raid No 10.

Jokes on them, all his stuff is at No 11.

# ? May 12, 2021 12:31

Chubby Henparty: Aug 13, 2007

Junior G-man posted:

It's episode 76 - London's Special Guy

Thanks

[wtf its right there in the title, maybe i autoarchived]

Chubby Henparty fucked around with this message at 12:57 on May 12, 2021

# ? May 12, 2021 12:31

mrpwase: Apr 21, 2010; I HAVE GREAT AVATAR IDEAS
For the Many, Not the Few

JeremoudCorbynejad posted:

Andy Streamman

Andy Streamvillage :eng101:

# ? May 12, 2021 12:34

big scary monsters: Sep 2, 2011; -~Ｓｋｕｌｌｗａｖｅ~-

Private Speech posted:

I was going by: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points-from-1-to-99-for-total-income-before-and-after-tax, which corresponds to the figure for after tax 2015, with before-tax being the 53k.

Thanks for the correction, then! :tipshat:

# ? May 12, 2021 12:37

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

Communist Thoughts posted:

Didn't NIP implode?

Not so far as I know? They didn't make the deposit threshold, but that wasn't really the point of the Hartlepool run as far as I know? James explains it much better than I can on the pod

# ? May 12, 2021 12:39

goddamnedtwisto: Dec 31, 2004; If you ask me about the mole people in the London Underground, I WILL be forced to kill you; Fun Shoe

radmonger posted:

Never interrupt your enemy when they are making. a mistake.

The reason Labour is structurally hosed right now is that the electoral math means that they need a coalition that stretches all the way from liberal capitalist to actual socialist. That would take a once-in-lifetime political genius to hold together, and there don�t seem to be any candidates. Any regular politician is going to be faced with a smoke choice. Say nothing and lose support slowly, or opening their mouth and speeding things up

Changing that, by allowing non-home owners to vote in greater numbers, means the political span of a winning coalition is smaller, and so easier to manage and argue for.

You probably won�t get that, but it is worth a roll of the dice. I very much doubt Boris�s competence in being able to successfully weight the dice the way he would want.

This is one of those takes that's so wrong it's almost impossible to know where to begin. I mean we'll start just with a [citation needed] the size of the Sun because I can't see any way at all that this will make it *easier* for the precariat, or even just the nomadic graduate class, to vote.

The vast, vast majority of those without ID (and unable to obtain it without serious financial pain) are Labour voters and while a naive glance at the numbers would suggest that it wouldn't have a huge effect on seats at an election (because the majority of those Labour voters are in extremely safe Labour inner-city seats) it will have multidimensional effects down the line, none of which are good.

To start with, boundary commission rules have already been changed to use only electoral roll data rather than census data to determine constituency sizes, meaning the most deprived areas are already extremely under-represented, and this move will *definitely* cause the amount of people registered to fall in those areas, allowing even greater gerrymandering towards safe Tory suburbia and exurbia.

Then you have to deal with the inevitable spinning of certain consituencies having a far higher degree of reports of people turning up without ID, all of which will be reported as attempted voter fraud, and used for the next round of disenfranchisement.

Finally even if you were right - even if, somehow, the Tories had made a colossal fuckup and this will actually make it easier for not-Tories to get elected - you're gleefully saying "Removing the most fundamental right of a democracy is actually politically expedient for us, hooray!" and need to take a really long, hard look at yourself.

If PM Corbyn had proposed a law removing the franchise from anyone who happened to own more than one Jeremy Clarkson DVD, Harry Potter book, or Oasis album, guaranteeing a solid socialist Labour majority forever, I would be opposing that just as hard as I will be this.

# ? May 12, 2021 12:39

crispix: Mar 28, 2015; Grand-Maman m'a raconté
_{(Les éditions des amitiés franco-québécoises)}

Hello, dear

Grey Hunter posted:

I would watch the hell out of an episode of "Can't Pay, Take it away" where they raid No 10.

they want to do a series in northern ireland imo, where bailiffs do not operate on account of they would be handed their own kneecaps in a sandwich bag if they turned up at many houses

grant off eastenders should narrate it

*puts away dictaphone*

# ? May 12, 2021 12:39

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/may/12/uk-to-require-social-media-to-protect-democratically-important-content

How long til SA has to unban Pissflaps?

# ? May 12, 2021 12:41

goddamnedtwisto: Dec 31, 2004; If you ask me about the mole people in the London Underground, I WILL be forced to kill you; Fun Shoe

Junior G-man posted:

It's episode 76 - London's Special Guy

Still pouting they talked to them two Medway ponces now living in Walthamstow, which is practically Scotland, about London instead of me, who could have given you punishingly detailed accounts of each candidates opinions and policies on the manhole covers of our great capital.

# ? May 12, 2021 12:41

Jaeluni Asjil: Apr 18, 2018; Sorry I thought you were a landlord when I gave you your old avatar!

In 2007 when I was in a Proper Job, I was on �42k gross which at the time put me at the 88th percentile.
Now I'm earning �9.90 per hour as a part-time finance person in a small local charity LOL (Full time hours, the pay would be about �19k I think)

I don't think people 'at the top' have much of a grasp on what most people earn.

I posted on twitter once that median pay was a bit less than �30k and that someone earning �52k was - I don't recall exactly and not looking it up - about the 80th percentile 2016 figures (or maybe more! google is your friend) with a link to the relevant official stats page, and some replies were 'is that true? wow!'

What is scary is this guy I know used to be a labour MP and when my work pension figure came through (some years ago I got figures from my work pension about what it was worth at various ages - not far north of �200 per 4 weeks - I think it has just hit the �60pw mark, I shall find out next week!) he was insisting it must be a weekly figure not the monthly figure it actually is and I must have made a mistake until I showed him the forecasts.

Clueless.

# ? May 12, 2021 12:49

goddamnedtwisto: Dec 31, 2004; If you ask me about the mole people in the London Underground, I WILL be forced to kill you; Fun Shoe

Grey Hunter posted:

I would watch the hell out of an episode of "Can't Pay, Take it away" where they raid No 10.

I'm 99.99% certain this is a windup or something, because a) Johnson, as a long-term journo and media figure, definitely doesn't take out debt in his own name but does it through whatever corporate tax vehicle he uses, b) even if he did he wouldn't list 10 Downing Street as his postal address for various reasons and c) I'm *certain* whatever civil servant actually opens the post at No10 would have noticed the summons and made it quietly go away.

# ? May 12, 2021 12:51

thespaceinvader: Mar 30, 2011; The slightest touch from a Gol-Shogeg will result in Instant Death!

big scary monsters posted:

A starting salary of �82k would put those senior doctors in the top 5% in the UK by income¹, so I can see why people might feel unsympathetic. But the income curve is so skewed at the top, so asymptotic, that I thought it might be illustrative to remind ourselves of how income is distributed in the UK and put doctors into perspective.

The top 10% of earners (income over ~�43k in 2015)² feel basically like normal folk and I imagine there are quite a few posting ITT. The top 1% (over ~�130k) are obviously raking it from the perspective of most of us, but the majority are also still workers in the sense that their money comes mainly from their employers. The fine folk of the top 1% pay about 30% of HMRC's income tax revenues, around the same portion as the 90-99% bracket . Even then you're "only" making a quarter of the top 0.1% (~�520k): the relative difference between someone on minimum wage and a senior doc. The richest 0.1% also control 10% of the country's wealth, so you know we're getting into serious capitalist territory here, basically nobody is getting this just as a pay cheque. Once you get onto the lofty heights of the top 0.01% (who are ~5500 people getting over �2.2m) income quadruples again and from their perspective the difference between �12k and �100k is basically nothing. It's hard to go up another order of magnitude to the richest 0.001%, because you're looking at individual people rather than statistics and they really don't like their finances being inspected. In any case it doesn't make much sense to talk about their income in the usual way because whether they gain �10m or lose �50m is basically reliant on random fluctuations of the market and in any case it doesn't much matter to them - to break the top 500 wealthiest (not the same as highest income but I can't find those numbers) UK people you have to have over �250m stashed away³.

All that is to say that sure, earning gently caress all and choosing between dinner and heat obviously feels very, very different to being a doc with a nice house in Zone 2 and a cottage in the Lakes. But the very top control so much wealth and take so much of the nation's productivity for themselves just for owning stuff that having a go at some guy who actually works for a living is pointless - to those on the top plane of income we all look like loving ants and they lend us about as much consideration. If some awful, awful catastrophe were to befall the top 0.1% basically no actual useful work would stop getting done - they'd all fit into the stands of a good sized football stadium like Anfield, remember, or onto the pitch in any standard sized grounds in the country. But we could all take a nice pay rise to console ourselves during the period of national mourning. I can't figure out exactly how much, but it seems like something on the order of another 25% of the total national salaries to divvy up as we choose. And since all that poo poo they own would still be around, like houses and factories and whatnot, I reckon we could find good use to put that stuff to as well. Much as it's frustrating reading about the out-of-touch opinions of the moderately well off in the lifestyle pages of the Guardian or among the Twitterati, it should be clear who the folk are to really have a go at.

_{1 Office of National Statistics: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points-from-1-to-99-for-total-income-before-and-after-tax}
_{2 All these numbers are from a 2019 Essex Uni Institute for Economic and Social Research study: https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/research/publications/working-papers/iser/2019-06.pdf, their numbers are derived from HMRC and ONS. Obviously it's a few years old, but then income inequailty has only increased since.}
_{3 Times rich list, you can look it up yourself.}

A good post.

It's perhaps worth underlining that the answer to 'doctors get paid 82k and many, many workers who work just as hard don't' isn't 'pay doctors less' it's 'pay everyone else more'.

Getting angry because some people are paid a lot is fine, but direct your anger at the paymasters of the people who don't get paid enough, not at the people who do.

Don't loving crab bucket one of the only professions where people actually get paid something vaguely approaching what they deserve.

# ? May 12, 2021 13:05

Comrade Fakename: Feb 13, 2012

The Tories may be in a commanding position right now, but they are facing total electoral oblivion in the future. They have inexorably tied themselves to a generation that is dying. Eventually it will be impossible for them to form a majority.

They are fully aware of this (well, at least some of them are). That's why the Queen's speech included Voter ID and this "free speech on campus" poo poo. It's not about the culture war (well, not just about that), it's an attempt to hold onto longer-term power. The free speech stuff is a pretty pathetic attempt to reverse their fortunes among the young. I doubt the speakers at the Oxford Union really effects generational opinion, but it's an attempt anyway.

Voter ID is a bit more straightforward. It's the start of an attempt to end democracy. The Tories always lag behind the US Republicans - ten years ago I would have said "the Tories are loving monsters, but at least they're not as bad as the Republicans, I guess". Now they are just as bad as Republicans, pre-Trump ones at least. The Republican party is now an undeniably fascist organisation that is currently rallying around retroactive support for installing Trump as a dictator. They will deny any election they lose is legitimate, and if they ever gain widespread power again (at least in this incarnation) they will make fair elections impossible. This is the trajectory the Tories are on. Voter ID is just the first step, like it was for the Republicans. This is the only way for Tories to hold power in the future, and they have no morals, so they will at least try.

# ? May 12, 2021 13:06

Maugrim: Feb 16, 2011; I eat your face

I can absolutely believe it (the unpaid debt) is the kind of thing Boris would deliberately set up to enhance his "just an ordinary bloke like me, what a legend" image

# ? May 12, 2021 13:06

Miftan: Mar 31, 2012; Terry knows what he can do with his bloody chocolate orange...

Just got ballot papers for GMB General Secretary. Does anyone here have any insight as to who is good/not poo poo of the people running?

# ? May 12, 2021 13:07

Noxville: Dec 7, 2003

Comrade Fakename posted:

The Tories may be in a commanding position right now, but they are facing total electoral oblivion in the future. They have inexorably tied themselves to a generation that is dying. Eventually it will be impossible for them to form a majority.

Oh come on, let�s not pretend that the country�s politics and each party�s politics is going to remain unchanged for the next 30 years. It�s been a tumultuous decade and I can only see the next few being even more so

# ? May 12, 2021 13:09

jiggerypokery: Feb 1, 2012; ...But I could hardly wait six months with a red hot jape like that under me belt.

JeremoudCorbynejad posted:

An excellent post and I'd like to add (because I didn't see it mentioned) that doctors are responsible for people's lives and small mistakes could put them in jail. A hefty renumeration seems reasonable in this context.

Not to mention the near decade of training and associated debt.

# ? May 12, 2021 13:15

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2024 15:51

Aipsh: Feb 17, 2006; GLUPP SHITTO FAN CLUB PRESIDENT

Comrade Fakename posted:

The Tories may be in a commanding position right now, but they are facing total electoral oblivion in the future. They have inexorably tied themselves to a generation that is dying. Eventually it will be impossible for them to form a majority.

ok but we've been saying this for 15 years

# ? May 12, 2021 13:23

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT May 2021 - Change the things that need changing and that is the change we will bring about

«‹›158 »