tremault
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
no, because i was trying to focus on my point rather than being evasive.
if you really need a material answer, if it wasn’t obvious enough, I would advocate more youngsters unemployed rather than people retire.
because those youngsters are more likely to create more jobs through entrepreneurship.
retiring by its very definition will not yield potential jobs increase.challenging question, which do I think is better?
well I think a better question is do i prefer:-
a) millions of fit and healthy people not working and feeling like they are entitled to relax and not work and get paid for the privilege, and most people being ok with it or having no real right to complain about it.
b) millions of fit and healthy people not working, a select few feeling entitled to sit on their backside, but the majority actually looking for work and many actually creating jobs by starting businesses and creating more jobs, and the ones who feel entitled get pressured by society to change their ways.the first one yields no improvement in our situation.
the second one yields potential for growth of the jobs market and reduction of the deficit.furthermore, I don’t think it’s fair to say people should retire to open up job positions for the young. by that logic, we should be advocating euthenisation of old people to make housing space for young people.
not to mention, the people who have been doing that job for years has amazing experience. experience being the thing that is keeping many youngsters from getting work in the first place. there are many skilled jobs who can’t fill the position because there is nobody who is experienced enough.the majority of the budget goes on NHS and pensions. if we are treating people to be more healthy and live longer, they should be working longer, not getting comparatively more money from the pensions. if we don’t increase the retiring age in line with NHS expenditure, we will never get out of this hole we have dug.
sure, employment increase would help, but to do that we need to increase public morale and that will increase spending and will create more jobs.
reducing the deficit will go a long way towards that.edit:
I accidentally hit the wrong vote button. there should be one less on yes and one more on no.
I surely sympathise with people feeling like they are being attacked or getting a ‘bum deal’, but I am currently without work. they have work. if they want to retire earlier then let them give me their job and they can go on jobseekers instead.about the helicopter on westminster drive.
if you want to see him leave, I captured it on camera – Nick Clegg's Helicopter take off – YouTubeha ha, I just thought about the link between westminster drive and where Mr Clegg spends most of his working hours. XD
There may not be a whole load of people posting in here, but i assure you there are a lot more reading that you think.
my advice after reading some of this, is to be very careful that your posts are not coming across as passive aggressive.
I honestly don’t think voters will approve.
I am not assuming that is the intention of anyone, but I can see a few places where it could be interpreted that way.hmm , sounds like a good idea :)
I personally wouldn’t do it because i believe in fair play but i wouldn’t judge anyone for it.
but i do think that Tesco would waive their policy in this case. either that or they would say that the price is £5 with the magazine, so it is the customers fault for not bringing the magazine.or is their customer service that good that they would make such big payouts like this?
I don’t have much experience with Tesco so I don’t know.I like to go to manna, the christian bookshop.
you don’t have to be religious to go in there and they are friendly people. they have never tried to force their views on me and I really enjoy the coronation chicken sandwich.
it’s also the cheapest cafe that I know of.
