The election thread - Two middle-late aged white men trying to be blokey and convincing..., same old shit, FFS.

[scblack]

.............but many have got there because they were born with a silver spoon, went to the right school, went to uni, became junior partners at the right firm through family contacts etc etc. .........

........The guy working on the production line at Holdens is paying the CEO's salary at Holdens..........

...........to think the world owes you something more than it owes everyone else when you do little more than anyone else to deserve it.........

Statements like the above mean I am simply wasting my efforts here.

Coming out with crap like this shows either:
A) - a complete lack of understanding;

or

B) - any willingness to engage this argument without total prejudice.

I can't be bothered any more. I will not lower my standards that much.

 

[Cave Dweller]

Cash needs make students skip class

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...ents-skip-class/2007/03/08/1173166897918.html

UNIVERSITY students are worse off than they were seven years ago, with nearly half admitting that paid work is affecting their studies and about a quarter regularly missing class to go to work.

But students' annual budget deficit has closed since the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee last conducted a survey of student finances in 2000, and they now spend just $320 each more than they earn, compared with more than $4000 at the last report.

Professor Alan Robson, who chaired the survey's steering group, said that the most worrying revelations were that nearly a quarter of students were taking out loans and that their studies were affected by their financial situations.

"I think what might be worth thinking about is what must be done about it, because is this what we want for a clever country?" said Professor Robson, who is vice-chancellor at the University of Western Australia. "We've got a skills shortage and we're not getting people who are getting the full advantages of their university education."

Vice-chancellors would consider whether increasing the number of government scholarships, easing access to youth allowance and reducing the age of independence from 25 to 18 might relieve financial stress.

The committee has conducted the survey about every five years since the 1970s and 97,338 students from all 37 universities in the country participate. The latest results come from a survey conducted last year.

Forty per cent of students agreed paid work was affecting their studies, compared with 16 per cent in 2000. Nearly a quarter of full-time undergraduates and more than a third of part-time undergraduates regularly skipped classes to go to work.

The proportion of undergraduates taking out loans rose from 10.7 per cent to 24.4 per cent, and the size of the loans grew from an average $3943 to $4720.

Stephen Smith, the shadow education minister, said the Government was to blame for students spending less time on studies. "The financial and time pressures faced by students not only compromise the quality of their education, but the potential future contribution that they will make to the Australian economy," he said.

 

[nizai]

The Government does not control monetary policy. I don't know how many times it has to be said, the RBA sets interest rates based on a underlying inflation target of 2-3%.

Really? Has someone told the Liberals that?

Old old story, low interest rates are the governments doing, high interest rates are the RBA's doing.

The perception of housing affordability being low is more than that I believe. scblack's point is valid that people will always manage. Its the sacrifices and allowances that have to be made nowadays that seem so much greater. If housing loans had remained at 20 or 25 year terms, would we still see the current level of housing affordability? Heck no, it'd be running in single digits. The allowance of running a loan out to 40 years has kept affordability within realms of the governments approval. Its not just that people are borrowing more due to soaring house values compared to the 70's. Its that theyre doing it over twice the term.

Then of course there is the trends of people sacrificing more family time for work, working multiple jobs, reliance of double incomes, less and less proportion of wages being saved etc.

Its an enormously complex subject that this thread is probably never going to address well enough. And for sure, the federal government can apportion much of the blame with its state counterparts. But surely we can all agree that the current situation we live in could be improved.

Whether the inequalities have always existed, are increasing, or whether we have only just become socially aware to notice it, it doesnt change the fact that I sure as shit would like my elected representatives to do more.

Id like to thank scblack, cave dweller etc for bringing some credibility to this thread at least, its an emotional subject of course, and everyone gets fired up from time to time

N

 

[FR Drew]

Statements like the above mean I am simply wasting my efforts here.

Coming out with crap like this shows either:
A) - a complete lack of understanding;

or

B) - any willingness to engage this argument without total prejudice.

I can't be bothered any more. I will not lower my standards that much.

How? Please explain to me how there is a level playing field for all? You cannot seriously expect me or anyone else to accept that we are all equal and all have the same opportunities. I fail to see how I am demonstrating a complete lack of understanding.

For every one high flier who started with nothing and built their empire from scratch the hard way, there are hundreds who inherited it and merely had to not be dumb enough to lose it all, or who got where they are because the options open to them are way more accessible than they are to the general folk.

As far as the Holdens comment is concerned, if there is no company producing a saleable profit then there is no CEO. You have technical workers down the bottom that build the product, you have middle managers and engineers in the middle and you have a CEO at the top.
I'm sorry but as far as I'm concerned, content free refuting of someones comments and a rolleyes emoticon do not constitute a debate.

How are you lowering yourself, do plese tell me?

You seem to have an insight that in some way, someone on multiple hundreds of thousands a year who has never had to sweat a day in their life except when they are pushing their DH bike up a hill or didn't take their ski jacket off on a sunny day at Blackcomb is worth more than a bloke who busts himself physically every day to put enough dollars in the account to pay his familys rent. Please explain.

Accept the fact that some have it good and some don't and it's not fair, don't try to promote some fallacy that we're all equal and we all work as hard as each other. It's simply not true. You've said yourself that you plan to make sure that your kids have the best opportunities they possibly can have. Some people don't have the resources at their disposal to do as much as you can. Your kids will end up better placed to earn more and struggle less than many of the lower paid.

You pick to pieces everything grab the little bits you can pull out of context, ignore any qualifying comments that people make and somehow think that you're engaging in an informed debate.

Your debate thus far has been at the level of "Two legs baaaaad, four legs good."

If you have no real answers to defend the Libs, that's fine. I was kind of hoping for a deeper level of discussion on monetary policy, flow on effects from those up high to those below, industry growth or something...

This has nothing to do with total prejudice. As I said before, my wife, daughter and I are doing okay and we got into the housing market early enough that we won't do too bad thankyou very much. I'm a mid level poppy and my wife regularly cops crap from some of her lower socio economic level family members that she's a "rich bitch".

I have concerns that the Howard way is in the best interests of the country and I believe that some of the luxuries I enjoy as far as wage etc goes should, through my tax, supply support for those lower down the tree. Maybe it is me being less selfish, maybe I'm a rabid lefty as you seem to like to label people, maybe I just don't understand how the world works and if we give the little guys support then they'll have no incentive to better themselves.

I would like to discuss the issues.

 

[lopes]

It's a pointless discussion, especially when voters like Oddjob makes the following statements in the same post:

"I'm voting for the Libs on the basis of their economic management".

and

"The previous Labor Government deserve a lot of credit for our current run of economic growth but this current Government has continued the good work to their credit"


So exactly why are you voting Lib?


Irrespective of whether you are left or right leaning, we (the electorate) should not be rewarding any politicians who do wrong.
Howard & Co have been corrupt or negligent re AWB, manipulative, divisive, 'loose with the truth' and we should not reward that behaviour.

I would say the same thing if it had been Labor in power over the last 11 years.

 

[Oddjob]

How? Please explain to me how there is a level playing field for all? You cannot seriously expect me or anyone else to accept that we are all equal and all have the same opportunities. I fail to see how I am demonstrating a complete lack of understanding.

For every one high flier who started with nothing and built their empire from scratch the hard way, there are hundreds who inherited it and merely had to not be dumb enough to lose it all, or who got where they are because the options open to them are way more accessible than they are to the general folk.

As far as the Holdens comment is concerned, if there is no company producing a saleable profit then there is no CEO. You have technical workers down the bottom that build the product, you have middle managers and engineers in the middle and you have a CEO at the top.
I'm sorry but as far as I'm concerned, content free refuting of someones comments and a rolleyes emoticon do not constitute a debate.

How are you lowering yourself, do plese tell me?

You seem to have an insight that in some way, someone on multiple hundreds of thousands a year who has never had to sweat a day in their life except when they are pushing their DH bike up a hill or didn't take their ski jacket off on a sunny day at Blackcomb is worth more than a bloke who busts himself physically every day to put enough dollars in the account to pay his familys rent. Please explain.

Accept the fact that some have it good and some don't and it's not fair, don't try to promote some fallacy that we're all equal and we all work as hard as each other. It's simply not true. You've said yourself that you plan to make sure that your kids have the best opportunities they possibly can have. Some people don't have the resources at their disposal to do as much as you can. Your kids will end up better placed to earn more and struggle less than many of the lower paid.

You pick to pieces everything grab the little bits you can pull out of context, ignore any qualifying comments that people make and somehow think that you're engaging in an informed debate.

Your debate thus far has been at the level of "Two legs baaaaad, four legs good."

If you have no real answers to defend the Libs, that's fine. I was kind of hoping for a deeper level of discussion on monetary policy, flow on effects from those up high to those below, industry growth or something...

This has nothing to do with total prejudice. As I said before, my wife, daughter and I are doing okay and we got into the housing market early enough that we won't do too bad thankyou very much. I'm a mid level poppy and my wife regularly cops crap from some of her lower socio economic level family members that she's a "rich bitch".

I have concerns that the Howard way is in the best interests of the country and I believe that some of the luxuries I enjoy as far as wage etc goes should, through my tax, supply support for those lower down the tree. Maybe it is me being less selfish, maybe I'm a rabid lefty as you seem to like to label people, maybe I just don't understand how the world works and if we give the little guys support then they'll have no incentive to better themselves.

I would like to discuss the issues.

Be careful before you start gunning for those with inherited wealth. Australia used to have death duties in order to level the playingfield between generations. This was despised by voters of all socio-economic levels.

The old bugbear about someones inherent worth and their market worth. I personally rail at seeing football players with barely enough IQ to breath getting paid stupid amounts of money compared to say teachers or nurses. Despite this I also believe that a market system is the best way to distribute limited resources. And if someone out there is willing to pay a footballer what I regard as stupid amounts of money then they should go for it. The same also applies for CEOs.

 

[Oddjob]

It's a pointless discussion, especially when voters like Oddjob makes the following statements in the same post:

"I'm voting for the Libs on the basis of their economic management".

and

"The previous Labor Government deserve a lot of credit for our current run of economic growth but this current Government has continued the good work to their credit"


So exactly why are you voting Lib?

Umm did my message get lost somewhere between your eyes and your brain? I was giving credit to the previous labor Government and the current Liberal Government. I can only vote for one of those groups in the upcoming election...

 

[FR Drew]

Be careful before you start gunning for those with inherited wealth. Australia used to have death duties in order to level the playingfield between generations. This was despised by voters of all socio-economic levels.

The old bugbear about someones inherent worth and their market worth. I personally rail at seeing football players with barely enough IQ to breath getting paid stupid amounts of money compared to say teachers or nurses. Despite this I also believe that a market system is the best way to distribute limited resources. And if someone out there is willing to pay a footballer what I regard as stupid amounts of money then they should go for it. The same also applies for CEOs.

Again, one minor point in an A4 page gets taken out to be picked at but the general gist of the whole discussion is ignored.

As for market worth, yup, sure, it's here to stay. I still feel (as it would seem you do) that in many cases the money is stupidly high. The market is dumb enough to pay the money so who is the footy player or CEO to say "No, don't be silly, I'm not worth that much."? I still don't think they're worth that much more than your average joe and so it's good to see something going back into the general pool.

SC Black has taken his bat and ball and stormed off saying he won't discuss it with me any more. I thought that I had made some salient points regarding investment in renewables, short term profits versus long term damage but what would I know?

I'm over it, I'll go back to scraping corrosion of Navy artefacts.

 

[Oddjob]

Again, one minor point in an A4 page gets taken out to be picked at but the general gist of the whole discussion is ignored.

As for market worth, yup, sure, it's here to stay. I still feel (as it would seem you do) that in many cases the money is stupidly high. The market is dumb enough to pay the money so who is the footy player or CEO to say "No, don't be silly, I'm not worth that much."? I still don't think they're worth that much more than your average joe and so it's good to see something going back into the general pool.

Lyle has taken his bat and ball and stormed off saying he won't discuss it with me any more. I thought that I had made some salient points regarding investment in renewables, short term profits versus long term damage but what would I know?

I'm over it, I'll go back to scraping corrosion of Navy artefacts.

But it wasn't a minor point it was very important. If you believe in self determination and freedom of choice then you implicitly support a market system. The temptation for many is to overlay their value beliefs on other peoples decisions and believe that they are better at making decisions than others. This is what leads to command economies.

As for your points re renewable energy sources, on what basis do you think that Labor will be any better. Do you believe that they will recieve different advice to the Libs or that they will simply develop better policies that balance the competing objectives of affordable energy and reduced CO2 emissions? I suspect that that if Labor gets in to Government you will not find Labor doing a lot more than the libs.

What about climate change? Do you honestly think Australia can prevent climate change? The US and China between them produce more CO2 in a day than Australia does in a year. By all means we should do our part but any agreement on CO2 (Kyoto) that does not include developing countries is pointless. Maybe we should be looking at how Australia should cope with climate change. The Libs have acknowledged this possibility but Labor can't bear to admit the truth for fear of alienating the Greens.

In summary I think Labor will be worse than the libs at economic management, will bloat out the public service rather than actually getting more money to the people who need it and be at the mercy of the unions on industrial relations. On the other hand they will probably have a better immigration and education policy. They might have some hope of make some much needed changes in health. In other areas I have no reason to believe they will be any better than the Libs, and this includes the environment. Based on that I think Australia will be better off with the Libs in government and a hung Senate.

 

[johnny]

Statements like the above mean I am simply wasting my efforts here.

Coming out with crap like this shows either:
A) - a complete lack of understanding;

or

B) - any willingness to engage this argument without total prejudice.

I can't be bothered any more. I will not lower my standards that much.

I think that was a bit over the top, saying that you are lowering your standards sounds a little snobbish and arrogant. I won't enter into the socialist leanings of FR Drew's posts because I'm not educated anywhere near enough on economic matters to have a valid opinion. BUT! scblack, if you honestly think that some one who is born into a single mother family in a low socio-economic area, goes to an under-funded school and is bought up around crime and alcoholism gets the same work ethics, moral values and even simple nutrition (all the things that go towards having a good crack at being successful) has the same oportunities as some one bought up in a good, loving waelthy family that ensures homework is done, schooling is good and that value is placed on hard work and education, you are completely scewed.....or jusdging EVERYONE on your own life experiences.

I will be the first to say that scblack has done very well for himself and hasn't relied on anyone in his family to give him a leg up. He has a nice place, that he owns/paying off, drives a nice car, rides a nice bike (ok, it's not a cannondale, but it'll do.... ) and is/will provide a good future for his kids. He has done all this on his own and has made himself what he is today by his own efforts.

BUT! Mate, that is a far cry from some one who's dad was in and out of prison, bashing his wife/kids, lived in a shitty crime ridden suburb and had parents that didn't care if they went to school or not. To say that every one has equal oportunity just because education is provided and they can have it if they want it ignores so amny factors that contribute to personality.

This really has nothing to do with the election though, does it?

scblack, don't go running off in a snooty huff just because you disagree with something that some one said. It's a look that doesn't suit a down to earth, tolerant bloke like you.

 

[lopes]

Umm did my message get lost somewhere between your eyes and your brain? I was giving credit to the previous labor Government and the current Liberal Government. I can only vote for one of those groups in the upcoming election...

So, did you vote for Keating against Howard initially, on the basis of his good management of the economy?

If anything, the centre ground (including the current ALP) has moved to the right since the last Labor government, so what makes you think a new Labor Government could not manage the economy?

There is actually reason to believe that Howard & Co have squandered the economic opportunities that have been presented to them by the previous labor government because they have concentrated on short term gains at the expense of the long term (big picture).

The cycle of big election year handouts is getting fairly predictible, but no doubt you will lap it up again.

 

[Garfunkel]

I am not 18, but if i was i'd vote Labour, i am sick of howard and his eyebrows.

 

[Dr Sprog]

Liberty is by its nature inegalitarian, because living creatures differ in strength, intelligence, ambition, courage, perseverance, and all else that makes for success.... As Walter Bagehot observed over a century ago, "there is no method by which men can be both free and equal." - Richard Pipe

However I'm not sure that we are more free OR more equal after 3 terms of Howard. He sure did drag our international reputation down into the pit, ass to GWB mouth all the way. As for the economy - the last few years of healthy surplus and the higher effective tax rates we are now paying have not been invested in the infrastructure necessary for continued growth. And it's not like the middle class (or dud industries like the private health insurance business) need all that welfare. Ahh, good old "Honest" John!

As for labour, if they had the guts to cut that chain linking them to the dead weight of the union movement - and could come up with more than populist rhetoric they might be worth a shot.

Democrats? Umm, who?

Greens, such lovely people, if only they weren't such misanthropes. OMFG! The coal industry is Australia's largest export earner - lets fcuk it over and see what happens to the economy! OH NOOES, GIANT WOMBATS DIED FROM GLOBAL WARMING - WE ARE NEXT!!!! Brilliant.

 

[scblack]

scblack, don't go running off in a snooty huff just because you disagree with something that some one said. It's a look that doesn't suit a down to earth, tolerant bloke like you.

You may well be right, but I am very fed up putting an
effort into my posts, only to be confronted with thinking that was relevant when the movie Metropolis was made - 1926.

I am in no state to provide a decent response tonight - too many Little Creatures beers tonight.

I'll reply when dry later this weekend. Buurp.

 

[FR Drew]

At present it still seens to be that the best response I'm getting from the Pro Liberal side is "On what basis do you think that Labor will be any better?"

I have little to respond to this with but Howards proven track record for the last decade that he isn't improving any, or changing.

Dear SC Black, I'm not stuck in the early 1930's or late 20's. Oddly enough, it would appear that (last time I looked) Australia has a sliding scale of tax brackets because it is accepted by most people that those further up the ladder with more means at their disposal should pay a larger proportion in income tax in order to balance out the system of opportunities.

(The following is not an attack on you, so please don't take it that way)

Because of a system full of a billion loopholes there are a multitude of ways supplied by tax minimisation accountants that the majority of us are unlikely to be able to afford ($250 just to meet with them and get advice for an hour, let alone have them take care of your tax return) that mean that those at the top of the tree are unlikely to be paying more than 30% maximum for every dollar they earn, not the 45% or more that the tax scales might have us beileve gets paid.

From my point of view, I'd prefer it if Uni was free, Medicare was properly funded as opposed to private health insurance companies being funded, we had better training across the board and some of the industries that are short term low gain as opposed to long term high gain got better support.

I'd prefer that we had a system like in some of the scandinavian countries where we all paid more tax. They're not communist, not even close, but their infrastructure works, their healthcare and education systems service everyone, their police and armed forces are appropriately resourced...

There is a yawning chasm between Stalin, Mao etc and Howard.

Given that you work in an industry where wealthier folk are trying to pay less tax (as they are legally alowed to do and have the financial means to do, another perk of being at the upper end of the heap) I don't expect you to support this point of view and that really doesn't bother me. I'm not expecting you to change your vote.

I don't like being picked at or belittled every time I give a reason for not approving of Howard, having my comments disected for any point that can be dragged out to hold up for ridicule. You're obviously a cluey guy, Johnny thinks you're a top bloke and although I've not met him I've read enough of his posts to have a lot of respect for him. I'll take that as a pretty solid character reference for you. I'm happy to just let it rest that we have a difference of opinion on politics.

Neither of us are likely to suddenly have an epiphany that the other one was right all along so, like you , I'm going to largely bail out of this debate.

I wish Howard had taken more of the opportunities while he had the reigns to make this country great and strengthen its position in a lot of areas. Instead I feel that he propped up a few isolated groups, wasted many other chances and has severely damaged Australia's international standing while in power. I don't think that he's a bad man, I'm just saddened that so many chances were wasted.

 

[Hamsta]

I have a question for the people who are taking the "Moral High Ground" in this thread.

How many of you have a family? How many have children I mean? And how many own property?

Once you have children and have other mouths who are totally and utterly dependent on you for every little thing they need, many peoples' perspective will quickly change. I know many of you will say - oh no, I have my opinions and they won't change, but in reality it will. Not completely, I won't be that over the top, but perspectives will change.

Johnny is one who does own property, as we have seen but he does not have children, and has stated he has no plans for ever having children. That itself changes perspective, as he can always sell the property and survive if needed. With dependent children, economic conditions personally mean a lot more, as you can't "just get by" if that means your kids are missing out on various things.

If you can't afford new shoes for your child, the fact that David Hicks trained with terrorists means a hell of a lot less.

I don't have any children because I know they would be a financial burden. No other reason, I crunched the numbers and the opportunity cost (time, money, lifestyle) associated with myself and my g/f having a child is way too high to even contemplate. I think a lot of people should consider the financial costs and then decide if they can afford to reproduce. Condoms are cheap and a vasectomy is even more convenient.

I have no empathy whatsoever for people who claim that they are doing it tough working the long hours or putting in the overtime etc to give their kids more opportunities, nor those who struggle to make ends meet because they have a child or children. Fuck, there is enough examples of families and financial scenarios, historical and contemporary, for individuals to learn from others the financial pitfalls associated with having a child or children.

If said people want to shit in their own financial nest, I don't expect to have to pay additional taxation etc to help clean the mess up. Baby bonus?. How about subsidised financial planning advice?

 

[FR Drew]

The only reason there's a baby bonus is because the Gov't is short money to fund its long term superanuation commitments within the public service. The only way to fix that is to have more taxpayers in the future. (which, as I said earlier, doesn't actualy solve the problem, it merely shifts it to later on when the hump of retirees that you asked people to breed up in the early 2000's are about to retire and require gov't support.)

Please don't rag on the baby bonus. Despite the fact that it's obviously flawed, it's the only "forward planning what effect will this have on the future of the country" style thinking in a policy that I'm aware of that Howard has produced in the whole time he's been in power. He's got to start somewhere!

As opposed to Mining, Greenhouse, Logging, Skills Training, Education, Foreign Relations, R&D on renewables where the future impacts have obviously not been considered at all or been given very little weighting.

Certainly, Australia cutting emissions and going for more renewables is not going to save the world from greenhouse. BUT If none of the developed countries take the opportunities they have to set a good example, to do the R&D to make renewables cheaper then all the other countries will keep doing what's cheap (burning coal).

If the cost to mine compared ot the energy release is looked at only, then sure, coal is cheap. However if the cost in long term impact is factored in then it stops looking like such a "cheap" option.

Sooner or later, people on this planet are going to have to pay back on the greenhouse ledger. We can try and make some decisions now that will help to address the problem, or we can carry on as normal in the knowledge that our great grandchildren may not have a habitable world at all.

Having a booming coalmining industry isn't going to be a great thing if everyone's dead.

BTW, as far as a baby bonus is concerned, 3k doesn't do squat in the big scheme of bills and expenses. It's a joke.

 

[scblack]

OK Drew, here is something of a reply.

You say you don't like to be belittled, or have small points dissected. I am afraid EVERYTHING you say is being included in your arguments, and will be treated the same as the rest.

Comments such as this:

For every one high flier who started with nothing and built their empire from scratch the hard way, there are hundreds who inherited it and merely had to not be dumb enough to lose it all, or who got where they are because the options open to them are way more accessible than they are to the general folk.

A comment such as that belittles EVERY person who works in a management role. It is an OFFENSIVE comment to every executive, including myself.

You say you have lifted yourself above the guys you worked with due to hard work and perseverance. Why do you imagine it is ONLY YOU who have done the hard yards. You are belittling thousands of people who have done years of study, and worked hard to raise THEIR roles and living standards. Comments such as that I will treat with contempt and is where my feeling that I am lowering my standards arise.

The reply you have put up in post #475 is fine, and cannot be faulted too much. That is your view. As you say I will probably never agree, and such is life.

But it does not include ill-informed remarks such as the above, or attempt to say that I feel that managers are WORTH more intrinsically.

...........to think the world owes you something more than it owes everyone else when you do little more than anyone else to deserve it.........

I have NOT tried to say things like that, and if anyone wants to imply such thoughts, I WILL take them to task.

Drew, we will never meet in our views, we know that. BUT the fact you have included ill-informed and offensive (maybe not intentionally offensive, but it IS such) remarks and ideals means I am going to fire back. Overall, we have differing views, no problem with that per se, but when you place those views in a manner that does offend me, I will not sit by. But I do appreciate that you probably meant no offence at all, so I will hold no grudge on that respect.

But I too, am happy to let it rest that we have differing views on politics and leave it at that.

 

[FR Drew]

Fair enough and I can see why the offense may have been taken, my apologies. Please let me clarify.

For starters I shouldn't have included the category of those who inherit and merely maintain with those who have greater opportunities.

As Johnny has already responded, the way to the top for someone with parents of means is a far easier path than the way to the top for those with cicumstances less well off. As I said before, you've said as much already that you plan to use the resources at your disposal to give your kids every possible chance to do well that you can. There are others who have to use every resource at their disposal merely to make ends meet and their kids won't get the same chance in life. It doesn't make it impossible, but it does make it harder. Although I started off in a trade, both my parents were teachers. The budget was tight but we got by and they made sure that I learned everything I could, even though I was at a public school. Yes, I got where I am from a trade beginning, but I was starting out nowhere near as far behind the eight ball as a wad of other folk. It's certainly not something that only I can do, but if I'd already been a father of two for instance, I could never have cut my ties and jumped ship to the ACT to study, I'd have been forced to keep doing my job to pay rent. After a certain fork in the road, doing he uni thing becomes very very hard without a supporting partner.

I have no desire to put the boot into every exec on the planet and as has already been discussed, mere supply and demand (there being a large number of worker ants for every exec) mean that the execs will get better paid. They also carry a greater responsibility if things screw up whereas the worker ant can just go "whatever" and carry one regardless. How one determines what is a suitable rate of pay for sweat from the brow versus mental stress from responsibility and management tasks is anyones guess and the subject of much debate. I'm not saying that it is your view personally that managers are worth more intrinsically, but, they get paid more, often a lot more and it's often very hard to see how the extra money can be justified.

As far as "...to think the world owes you something more than it owes everyone else when you do little more than anyone else to deserve it..." I was not attributing this point of view to you.

There are a range of people in the well off sphere who by dint of the schools they went to, the friends they made, the suburb they live in and so forth are unlikely to ever be on struggle street. They have the connections to get them through. The school you went to, the club you're a member of, the tie you wear open a lot of doors that are quite simply closed to the general populous.

To even hope to end up in the same place at the end of the day, the person born into a mainstream family is going to have to absolutley slave and even then, is unlikely to ever have the connections due to family friendships, who mum and dad went to school with etc.

Example: Alexander Downer isn't where he is because he's a premium level political thinker and uber international statesman, he's there because he was born as Alexander Downer. I mean, seriously, if he's the best thinker the Libs have got when it comes to international politics, that in its own right has to be reason enough to vote for another party. It's one of the safest seats in SA and you'd have to believe that there was someone better to sit in the chair.

 

[johnny]

I am in no state to provide a decent response tonight - too many Little Creatures beers tonight.

Yeah, right. I believed you until you tried to claim that there was such a thing as "too many little creatures".

Oh god, I miss Australian beer.....I miss homebrew even more!