[website] How close are you to the political centre?

[tmcd35]

I'm fairly certain it was the Meek.

 

*whisper* I know *whisper*

[MkII]

Exactly - that's your opinion

 

I earn millions every month with a company I built from the ground-up. Nobody ever gave me anything, I had to fight to get where I am today and it made me a better man. Why should I be forced to lose some of what I rightfully earn to give handouts to people that will never grow as I did becausethey know I am forced to cut my wealth for them. They'll never have to amount to anything because their government punishes me for their laziness. I feel like the government just wants to cream more tax off me and if that's the case, I'll take my business overseas.

 

I can hardly find any work because multi-billion pound companies are employing too much cheap overseas labour, replacing people with robots or simply not hiring as many staff in order to increase their bottom line. I can't get a customer service job because I'm overqualified but I'm in thousands of pounds of debt because of Uni, and a qualification that's worthless as companies want experience now. I feel like the government lied to me about education and it doesn't seem like I'm going to break out of poverty any time soon.

 

Two sides of the same coin, depending on your circumstances and opinions.

 

If you make your money fairly, that is without making another human being lose out so that you can profit, I don't see a problem. Still, I wouldn't expect you to be so greedy that you didn't think you had a responsibility to your fellow human who may be suffering. I feel that way on my paltry wage, so you should on your vast fortunes.

 

I'm not talking about feathering someone's nest, but basic human needs. The Walton family, the owners of Walmart, are amongst the top 10 earners in the US. They've paid a lot of their workers below the minimum wage, so the majority of the public subsidise those people with benefits from their taxes. Same goes for that recent payout to the uk premier football clubs. Their workers on less than minimum wage working in the stadiums on a Saturday didn't see any of the huge bonus, the star players got it all. We all pay for those workers benefits. Selling off our services to the private sector doesn't save money. It funnels profit to the wealthy. The US health system, which we're trying to emulate in the UK, costs 6% of GDP. The NHS costs 3% of GDP.

 

Multi billion pound companies control the media and what you think. What capitalism desperately needs is regulation, and politicians in the pockets of giant corporations fight for deregulation. One person doesn't make their fortune in a vacuum. It seems the most profit is to be made by exploiting the poorest.

 

These are not opinions. These are facts. There is a wealth distribution problem. Selfishness needs to be regulated.

[localzuk]

If you make your money fairly, that is without making another human being lose out so that you can profit, I don't see a problem. Still, I wouldn't expect you to be so greedy that you didn't think you had a responsibility to your fellow human who may be suffering. I feel that way on my paltry wage, so you should on your vast fortunes.

 

I'm not talking about feathering someone's nest, but basic human needs. The Walton family, the owners of Walmart, are amongst the top 10 earners in the US. They've paid a lot of their workers below the minimum wage, so the majority of the public subsidise those people with benefits from their taxes. Same goes for that recent payout to the uk premier football clubs. Their workers on less than minimum wage working in the stadiums on a Saturday didn't see any of the huge bonus, the star players got it all. We all pay for those workers benefits. Selling off our services to the private sector doesn't save money. It funnels profit to the wealthy. The US health system, which we're trying to emulate in the UK, costs 6% of GDP. The NHS costs 3% of GDP.

 

Multi billion pound companies control the media and what you think. What capitalism desperately needs is regulation, and politicians in the pockets of giant corporations fight for deregulation. One person doesn't make their fortune in a vacuum. It seems the most profit is to be made by exploiting the poorest.

 

These are not opinions. These are facts. There is a wealth distribution problem. Selfishness needs to be regulated.

 

Sorry, you are mixing up fact with opinion still. The Walton's being amongst the top 10 earners? That's a fact. Whether they treat their workers poorly, or whether they're greedy? That's opinion. Its opinion I agree with, but its still opinion.

 

In your opinion (and mine, absolutely), there is a wealth distribution problem. It isn't a fact.

[Garacesh]

If you make your money fairly, that is without making another human being lose out

These are not opinions. These are facts. There is a wealth distribution problem. Selfishness needs to be regulated.

'Fair' is opinion. What constitutes as 'losing out' is opinion. Your entire post is your opinion. Opinion I actually agree with - but it's still opinion. It is not measurable. It is not quantifiable. It cannot, on that basis, be fact.

 

It is a fact that wealth is distributed unevenly. It is opinion that wealth is distributed unfairly.

[MkII]

I think the Walton's greed is fact. They take huge gains and pay less than minimum wage to achieve that. Fact.

 

Uneven = unfair.

 

"To what extent do you agree or disagree that government should redistribute income from the better-off to those who are less well off?"

 

I agree because I know distribution is unfair. Fact. Not opinion.

 

"To what extent do you agree or disagree that big business benefits owners at the expense of workers?"

 

I know for a fact that big business thrives on the exploitation of its workers. Not opinion.

 

"To what extent do you agree or disagree that ordinary working people do not get their fair share of the nation’s wealth?"

 

I know for a fact that the distribution of wealth is unbalanced wildly in favour of the richest.

 

"To what extent do you agree or disagree that there is one law for the rich and one for the poor?"

 

I know for a fact that corporations avoid tax where ordinary people would be penalised.

 

"To what extent do you agree or disagree that management will always try to get the better of employees if it gets the chance?"

 

Evidence proves that capitalist motives have to exploit weaknesses.

 

My "opinion" is that I believe selflessness is the best way for humans to act. I don't know where that puts me on the political spectrum, but I don't count any of the above to be "opinion".

[MkII]

 

 

I live in Wales and I find myself agreeing with the policies of Plaid Cymru the most, so that would appear to be accurate.

Edited March 28, 2015 by MkII

[sparkeh]

Uneven <> unfair

 

Simple example: there are 2 workers who work for an hour, there are 4 coins available for wages, worker 1 gets x3 as much work done as worker 2. Worker 1 is paid 3 coins and worker 2 is paid 1 coin. The distribution is uneven but is it unfair?

 

The answer to that question is a matter of opinion and different people will have a different view. Just as the exploitation of workers in examples above. You are stating opinions, not fact.

[MkII]

In your example the distribution is uneven and fair. There is no movement in opinion on that. It's a fact.

 

If there is a precondition that an hourly rate is paid no matter what is produced, then it would be different.

 

With exploitation of workers, the facts are different...

 

I force down the price of labour to 1/10th of its value without consideration for its implications so that my personal profit can be greater. I don't need that profit and my employee does, but I'm going to do it anyway just because I can. The imbalance is also unfair but my status comes with the power to buy the law. The fact is, I am acting unfairly. There is no doubt about that.

 

Here's another take on the bbc test...

 

1 + 1 = 2

2 + 2 = 4

4 + 4 = 8

8 + 8 = 16

16 + 16 = 32

 

If you strongly agree with all of the above then you're left wing.

[sparkeh]

In your example the distribution is uneven and fair. There is no movement in opinion on that. It's a fact.

What the example actually shows is that the (un)fairness of the wage is subjective and not fact. I am not sure how you are still confusing fact and opinion.

 

Worker 1 thinks it's fair as he did more work. Worker 2 thinks it's unfair as they both worked the same amount of time. Opinion, not fact.

[MkII]

Objectively, it's unfair. That's all we need to know. Anyone's opinion beyond that is irrelevant. Opinion is only relevant where only subjective evidence is possible.

 

Government fixation with budget deficit is ‘bogus’, says Nobel-prize-winning economist Paul Krugman >

Government fixation with budget deficit is ‘bogus’, says Nobel-prize-winning economist Paul Krugman - The National

 

The opinion of the uninformed shouldn't change the fact that something is known/ accepted by an authoritative source.

Edited March 28, 2015 by MkII

[Garacesh]

Objectively, it's unfair.

Nothing can be objectively unfair unless you define all of the statistics.. X earned more than Y.. Not unfair. (Not, by rights, fair, either, but not unfair in of itself.).. X earned more than Y despite the fact that they worked the same hours and produced the same amount and quality of product, now that we're defining more statistics we get a better idea of whether it might be fair or not, but it's still an opinion.

 

For example, person Y may in fact, be a giant douche. I personally don't think you should dock wages for employees having a negative attitude, but that is my opinion. So saying that "It's unfair!" actually means "It's unfair, in my opinion." - that's not to say it condones the act just because it's my opinion that it's wrong (And not fact).. But what I'm trying to convey is that unfair can't be factual unless you're discussing actual statistical odds. Casino odds are factually unfair, as they weigh heavily in the house's favour. Morally the games aren't unfair, but statistically they are because this is one of the few cases where you can factually, reliably and repeatedly measure 'fair'.

 

That being said, we are accounting for language not evolving. Whilst I'm not too fond of literally meaning figuratively now, it's possible that 'fact' could now be meaning 'opinion'. It's always the opposites.[/s]

[Sagima]

Since I last did that sort of test (political compass one around the last General Election) I've moved from being slightly to the right of Thatcher to slightly to the right of Ghandi.

The one on the bbc though I was centre left

[MkII]

Nothing can be objectively unfair unless you define all of the statistics.. X earned more than Y.. Not unfair. (Not, by rights, fair, either, but not unfair in of itself.).. X earned more than Y despite the fact that they worked the same hours and produced the same amount and quality of product, now that we're defining more statistics we get a better idea of whether it might be fair or not, but it's still an opinion.

 

Muddying the water is what politicians do so that you can't call them liars. They're all whiter that white, upstanding members of the public after all. The only way we couldn't be objective is if we didn't know all of the facts. We can reach a reasonable conclusion that is factually correct to all intents and purposes. Opinion comes in to play if there's enough wiggle room for your own bias to take sides. Someone with an interest only in making profit from an employee might have a different perspective from someone looking at the employee and the employer and trying to distribute the profit fairly. An _opinion_ in that case is derived from an extremely warped POV vs an impartial bystander. No warped perspectives should have any sway on factual information.

 

I believe you're factoring in bias to make a case for opinion. I think there are facts enough to work on.

[Garacesh]

No warped perspectives should have any sway on factual information.

Very true, and that's how it is now. That's kinda how facts work. They're true. Done. No warped perspective can sway facts, because facts are facts, they are repeatedly measurable and quantifiable.

 

If you tell me "The net amount X employee is paid is £2.13 per hour. This is below the UK national minimum wage." that is fact.

If you told me "The net amount X employee is paid is unfair.", then that would be your opinion (and one I would agree with, at £2.13 an hour!)

 

If you said that the employee was getting £2.13 and hour and I said "I don't think that's right. They get health benefits too which would cost them a lot, so in my opinion they're getting paid in benefits as well as money." that does not change the fact that they are being paid less than NMW, but my opinion might be that it's fair because of the numerous other benefits they get. Still illegal. Still factually accurate that they're getting

 

Paid £3.00 per hour, which is less than NMW. However they are given accommodation at the expense of the business (I.E. rent, gas, electric, etc. is all paid for.) All the employee has to do is buy their own food. 36 hours per week, £108, call it £432 per month and with the exception of food, all of that income is disposable.

Paid £6.00 per hour, which is above NMW, but has to find their own accommodation, pay their own bills, etc. 36 hours per week, £216 a week, £864 per month.

 

This is why I mention the requirement to know all of the statistics, or at least, the more you know, the better opinion of 'fair' you can make. Because I personally would certainly call the first scenario 'fair' in of itself (although I would have to see the company-provided accommodation before signing the contract personally)

[MkII]

Looking at the BBC poll then Garacesh, do you think your answers to those questions are facts or opinions?

 

There is only one question that asks if you think something is "fair". The way I understand the hard facts, there is absolutely a wealth distribution problem in the world, and in the UK. It's an imbalance that I think has to self correct.

[Garacesh]

Looking at the BBC poll then Garacesh, do you think your answers to those questions are facts or opinions?

As opinions. I thought that was self-explanatory. Who you vote for is based (in theory) on who's opinion matches yours. You're not going to vote for someone you disagree with, no?

[MkII]

We have stances based upon our best understandings. Capitalists and those with vested interest in their own advancement would have a bias that favours them. That poll assumes a capitalist bias. It's saying that if you don't have a capitalist bias, then you're a lefty. I think the truth, the facts, lie in the middle. Not opinions or bias.

[sparkeh]

Uneven = unfair.

In your example the distribution is uneven and fair.

I'm not entirely sure where you are coming from now. Which is it?

 

On the facts vs opinions thing, perhaps @Garacesh has it right and we are arguing from different viewpoints on the meaning of the terms. I am using a strict, and perhaps older, version meaning that terms like 'unfair' cannot be counted as 'fact' but rather are opinions, whereas you appear to be using the term 'fact' to meaning conclusions that you have come to based on your own particular bias.

[JayDog]

The issue with most political systems is that they are 'Representative' based rather than 'Referendum' based.

 

That's to say you have a Pizza shop and they sell 4 or 5 pizzas and you have to choose which one you like the most or in most cases, the one you dislike the least. You may love olives but hate anchovies but that's the options you have. Referendum based systems is where you can choose anchovies, olives, peppers, pineapple etc... and depending on what is the most popular topping, we all get that! It's more a case of the populace deciding the manifesto of the government rather than them saying this is what we have on offer. I saw the broadcast for the Tory's last night, yes it was all about we're going to do this and we're going to do that but no mention of HOW they're going to do it. I could do one tomorrow and say I'm going to give everyone a free unicorn that poos diamonds, I'm not going to say how I intend to do it and by the time I get elected I'll quietly forget about my unicorn gem defecation policy.

[Garacesh]

I could do one tomorrow and say I'm going to give everyone a free unicorn that poos diamonds, I'm not going to say how I intend to do it and by the time I get elected I'll quietly forget about my unicorn gem defecation policy.

Everybody knows unicorns poop rainbows. No way you'd get elected. I see right through your lies!