Comments by "Pob" (@goodlookinouthomie1757) on "Labour’s in a mess over ‘working people’, and rightly so" video.

It also might mean that a significant percent are paid below minimum wage because they are "off the books" if you get my meaning.
2
Well.... Unless I can define myself. I actually earn a reasonable living and I get by. But I'd like to identify as unemployed and as such I am not eligible to file a tax return.
2
@skyblazeeterno We're on the same page. The hackneyed narrative that we need them for the economy or the NHS is proven to be untrue. I'd argue that even if it were true, the cultural and social harm from mass immigration far outweighs any benefits. I realise my irony in former comments might not have been obvious.
2
@ianbarnes8593 Which would also include most business owners, who are selling their goods to someone else. Jeff Bezos is a working person, right? He sells his products to me.
1
@CuriousCrow-mp4cx Since you post the same "outrage farming" phrase in a lot of answers here, it's you who looks more like the AI my friend.
1
@AlanRumble-sl8dn Any economist will tell you the tax you paid over your lifetime is nowhere close to the amount you will consume from state funds. The truth is that money is borrowed and the bill falls to our children and grandchildren. And beyond.
1
Falling birth rates though.... they are fine as long as you can import millions of people from elsewhere to keep up with the perpetual growth that our economy mandates. This in itself is predicated on the ideology that all people are the same and interchangeable. Which is why they'd have us believe the moment that Somalian tribesman's foot touches the sand of a Sussex beach, he becomes as British as you or I.
1
Why should passive income be relevant? If I work 20 hours a week and earn the same as someone else working 40 hours, is half of my income "passive"?
1
I think there's a certain amount of pragmatism to it all, an acknowledgement that we can't possibly sustain the system the way it is. Which is reasonable, but I'd be more sympathetic to it if we weren't simultaneously sending obscene amounts of money to fund foreign wars and accommodating illegal migrants.
1
@michaelmayo3127 Reasonable from their point of view. And good luck achieving a society without wealth disparity and poverty and the charity that necessarily springs up in response. As far as I am aware it hasn't been done yet and when it's been attempted it's never ended well.
1
@michaelmayo3127 You're quoting me disingenuously. Removing all wealth inequality has not been done yet. It will always exist and indeed it is necessary for a functioning economy. Aside from that, I know you don't really believe there is no impoverishment in France or Germany. I quickly Googled "Germany Homelessness" and found articles discussing it as every bit the crisis that we have in the UK. As for the Netherlands, the sources I skimmed seemed to suggest that is was a rapidly worsening problem there too. I get the sense that we are on the same page about the benefits of a homogeneous society. Although I don't necessarily think that has ever been a remedy for inequality.
1
@michaelmayo3127 I mean you could start by reading about the Pareto principle.
1
@michaelmayo3127 Don't misunderstand me. I think it's a moral good to try and reduce inequality as much as it is practical to do so. But to get carried away and try to eradicate it altogether is the route to misery for everyone.
1
Not a controversial view, but I would point out that we do have elections. Albeit rather strange ones.
1
Taken at face value I'd say if means anyone with a job.
1
@skyblazeeterno Are you one of those lazy Brits they talk about who won't do the jobs that we need all these migrants for? Surely there is a care home or a car valet with vacancies in your area.
1
@skyblazeeterno What do we need them for?
1