Very sad news

[gregmcateer]

And rightly so when you work 20 years longer than the rest of us.

Eh?
You may be in the happy position of not being motivated by money, (we have no idea of each others means or income), however I have found through life that everyone who is providing for themselves and their family tend to have at least a bit of motivation for money, unless they live in a moneyless community or are totally self sufficient.

On your point above, many people HAVE to work long past 'normal' retirement age in order to live even a half decent life, yet mostly will not be able to negotiate a pay rise. Particularly so if they have been on minimum wage, which earlier you rather bizarrely suggested was a matter of choice.

 

[Garno]

I remember way back (my joining date isn't correct as originally I was Senior) ..... way way way back when Jacob was funny.

That's some memory you have

 

[J-G]

... On your point above, many people HAVE to work long past 'normal' retirement age in order to live even a half decent life...

Only if they have been living most of their working life 'beyond their means' - and wish to maintain that same lifestyle.

 

[Jacob]

Only if they have been living most of their working life 'beyond their means' - and wish to maintain that same lifestyle.

Or been underpaid, made redundant, been ill, been paying too much rent, bad luck, ripped off, .....and many more possible reasons. The principle ones being low pay / job insecurity, or the poverty trap where the problems become insurmountable. Being skint is rarely a lifestyle choice
Very few wage earners earn enough to save for a meaningful pension and the state pension is one of the lowest in Europe. Brexit will help keep it that way of course

 

[Amateur]

Eh?
You may be in the happy position of not being motivated by money, (we have no idea of each others means or income), however I have found through life that everyone who is providing for themselves and their family tend to have at least a bit of motivation for money, unless they live in a moneyless community or are totally self sufficient.

On your point above, many people HAVE to work long past 'normal' retirement age in order to live even a half decent life, yet mostly will not be able to negotiate a pay rise. Particularly so if they have been on minimum wage, which earlier you rather bizarrely suggested was a matter of choice.

I
Everything in life is a matter of choice, more so today, and yes many people will work past retirement, but many will decide to not take their pensions because of taxation restrictions.
I know all about minimum wage workers. I also know many who progressed past that point using the opportunity as a stepping stone. I know people who asked it the company would pay their course fees if they did an accountancy course for instance. Now an accountant with the same company.
I know people who started stacking shelves at supermarkets who are now buyers, and store managers.
But I take your point.

 

[Jacob]

I
Everything in life is a matter of choice,

Except things which aren't a matter of choice, of which there are very many.

 

[D_W]

Except things which aren't a matter of choice, of which there are very many.

I don't think you'd deal well with the odds of being fine if you don't do stupid things intentionally and expect someone else to pick up the pieces for you.

Perhaps the outcome for 5% or so would be bad, but holding them up as the average or using them for a scare story is juvenile.

8 years old, I was playing soccer - coach threw the ball closer to the guy I was drilling against in a drill and I said "that's not fair". The guy who was a coach had a rough life, some of it was probably his fault due to the drink, but he was a good guy. He said "life ain't fair kid". My dad heard it and the rest of my life, he said "remember what coach said".

Since then, I've seen many people who have had bad breaks, but for every one of them, I know 20 who think something that's their fault is someone else's fault. While everyone else cuts the wood and carries the water every day, they refuse to do it and or do little of it and are focused on what they don't have. They have little because they're talking about the other people who cut wood and carry water while those people do it.

 

[Amateur]

Except things which aren't a matter of choice, of which there are very many.

Seems to be more choice to do nothing than something regardless today.

 

[Jake]

I have resolved to book immediate flights to somewhere next time a significant royal dies. Sad for his family as it is for everyone's.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Homo sapiens are competitive animals. Competition is the driver of innovation, ideas, progress and growth,

Winning the competition brings money, respect, titles, promotion, recognition, personal satisfaction. Not all are solely motivated by money.

That some individuals achieve greater wealth, influence and power is inevitable. Most eventually realise that they will never be a contender and pursue other of lifes goals - family, hobby, work-life balance etc.

Many build small workshops, buy woodworking tools and machines, produce furniture, boxes, chess sets etc. They won't rival Chippendale or Rennie-mackintosh but find satisfaction in their hobby.

When the state pension was introduced in 1909 (~decade before DoE was born) very few lived long enough to claim it. We now typically live for ~20 years post normal retirement age.

It would be (IMHO) unfair to expect those working to fund the pensions of those retired who are still fit and able. This means that those who wish to retire early need to make their own provision.

Fortunately employment opportunities are increasingly flexible and varied - many choosing to work part time as they advance in years.

To keep on topic this is effectively what the DoE was doing. That he lived in some luxury was testament to his ability to win (over others) the affections of a future monarch.

Do I envy him his wealth - no. I am reconciled to my relatively comfortable existence in retirement and would not have wished the continual public spotlight he endured.

Should the wealthier be taxed to provide extra for the less fortunate is a fair question. That which increases aggregate wealth for society as a whole is good. Pursuit of "fairness" is admirable but we need to explicitly understand the cost. Negative emotions - envy, anger, etc - are very poor reasons.

 

[Jacob]

Homo sapiens are competitive animals. Competition is the driver of innovation, ideas, progress and growth,

Winning the competition brings money, respect, titles, promotion, recognition, personal satisfaction. Not all are solely motivated by money.

99% of human achievement is through co-operation not competition. Competition has its role but has become a rather lazy right-wing trope - as a panacea a failure for most purposes

....... That which increases aggregate wealth for society as a whole is good. .....

Not if it isn't available for society as a whole.
For instance, the astronomical wealth accumulated by the slave trade didn't do much for the slaves. Would a Venn diagram help?

Pursuit of "fairness" is admirable but we need to explicitly understand the cost.

Luckily the cost is low. Negative in fact. Taking assets from where they are not needed costs nothing, using them where they are needed is self evidently profitable.
Modern society involves a good deal of redistribution, basically through tax and spend, and the benefits are huge. Taxation drives economies. What goes around comes around.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Taxation drives economies?
You have to have something to tax ............. and that's not things like the NHS which are wholly paid from taxes on industries and people that actually make money. Someone has to make the money in the first place, and many would argue that easy come easy go, much of the income from taxation is wasted. In your socialist utopia many of the biggest earners would move out of the Country - that's been seen under Labour governments before.

 

[Lard]

 

[Jacob]

Taxation drives economies?
You have to have something to tax ............. ....

What goes around comes around.
Have you ever played Monopoly? The game slows/stops when too few players own too much "wealth". It starts again when it's shared out again.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

It's not real, Jacob.

 

[Jacob]

It's not real, Jacob.

It was designed to show how the economy works. It does it very well. Started out as "The Landlords Game".
The Landlord's Game - Wikipedia
Economics is much simpler than economists want you to think.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

There's clearly no need for prize winning top economists supported by multi £m supercomputers running complex economic and financial models.

Just buy the Chancellor a few sets of Waddingtons (now Hasbros) finest game (Monopoly). He can play with friends and with the insights gained launch radical new initiatives.

Trouble is, Monopoly was invented and intended as a competitive game with winners and losers. It was not a demonstration of socialist ideals wherein all competitors are still going many hours or days later.

 

[Lons]

Indeed Chris, Jacob turns a post into a socialist broadcast, I try to stop it, then you post "same pattern"

Well Bob it's only a few days ago that you suggested "the mods do their job" and that post seemed to disappear/was deleted. ( as no doubt will this if spotted. . It could still be there of course hidden somewhere among the dross.
I agree with you 100% btw it hasn't taken the usual culprit long to turn several threads into political campaigning following his reinstatement from exile.

 

[D_W]

It was designed to show how the economy works. It does it very well. Started out as "The Landlords Game".
The Landlord's Game - Wikipedia
Economics is much simpler than economists want you to think.

Did you notice in the game, they don't encourage people to land on the "take from others with nothing in return" square?

 

[Jacob]

There's clearly no need for prize winning top economists supported by multi £m supercomputers running complex economic and financial models.

Just buy the Chancellor a few sets of Waddingtons (now Hasbros) finest game (Monopoly). He can play with friends and with the insights gained launch radical new initiatives.

Trouble is, Monopoly was invented and intended as a competitive game with winners and losers. It was not a demonstration of socialist ideals wherein all competitors are still going many hours or days later.

Close!
It demonstrates that left to market forces there are only ever a few winners but many losers. And in fact the game tends to stop, and fights break out etc. The economy ceases to function.
To get it going again you have to restart the game by sharing it all out again.
In real economies, rather than stopping and starting (which does happen of course) the preferred option is a steady recirculation of wealth to keep the thing going steadily. There has to be a countervailing force against the inevitable drift of wealth ever upwards ("Trickle up theory").
It has to be brought down again, to keep the wheels turning.