No—I'm Squander Two!

Squander Two has penned a superb post outlining the reticence (or, rather, politeness) of many non-Lefties on Facebook. Often in the face of considerable provocation from the Lefty "echo chamber".

Some of my friends agree with me about lots of things, and we can have a good old eye-roll together about how people genuinely thought Ed Miliband was Prime Minister material. (No, really, they did.) Some of them agree with me about almost nothing but are perfectly happy to have a good-natured argument with no hurt feelings. And some live in the Lefty Echo Chamber, in which case I do the sensible thing and don't talk about politics, because disagreement confuses and upsets them, and — and this is the crucial bit — they're my friends. I don't particularly want to confuse and upset my friends. As the old proverb says, better to offer another slice of cake than to laugh about Ed Balls. (Though I understand Yvette does both.)

Facebook, Squander Two maintains, should be treated like your living room. However, many people are unable to do so.
But even most of my friends who are willing to have an argument still have one foot in the Lefty Echo Chamber. What else could explain their reaction to the election result? Not just disappointment or upset but sheer uncomprehending bafflement. They have almost no experience of the existence of Tories, yet it turns out loads of people voted for them. Who are these people?

These people are the ones nodding and smiling. You know lots of them — statistically, unless you're in Scotland, it is highly likely that around half your friends voted Tory. Hey, some of your friends probably voted UKIP. Yes, even though you've been calling them "evil stupid Nazis" for years, to their faces. They still did it. They just didn't tell you. Because they knew, with absolute certainty, that you'd be an arsehole about it.

Yes—we know at least one young lady who might fit that bill, eh?

Anyway, the whole thing is long and so damn right. I cannot recommend strongly enough that you read the whole thing...

Women pay

Here's another one to file under "No shit, Sherlock"...

In Chile, a law requires employers to provide working mothers with child care. One result? Women are paid less.

In Spain, a policy to give parents of young children the right to work part-time has led to a decline in full-time, stable jobs available to all women — even those who are not mothers.

Elsewhere in Europe, generous maternity leaves have meant that women are much less likely than men to become managers or achieve other high-powered positions at work.

Family-friendly policies can help parents balance jobs and responsibilities at home, and go a long way toward making it possible for women with children to remain in the work force. But these policies often have unintended consequences.

Really. Well, that is a surprise.

Who'da thunk it, eh?

The Olympics Tickets Balls-Up

NB: I am not the Devil

Still the whining goes on about Olympics tickets, and still no-one seems to have identified the problem.

Look. I was given a ticket for an event which I won't be attending as it has no value to me. Ain't I the hideous one, eh?

Its original price, according to what I can find out, was £87 if you were to buy it from the official site. I'd have sold it for a fiver and been ecstatic about it, except that I'm not allowed to by law.

The unauthorised selling of Olympic tickets is a crime under the Olympic Act punishable by a £20,000 fine, and police have warned they will take tough action against touts.

It therefore resided, until recently when the council picked it up, in my recycling bin.

We know very well why this approach was taken. It's because there is an attitude in our country which is so fearful of "the privileged" sucking up tickets by virtue of being rich, that every effort has been taken to stop them doing so. It's easy to concede that there is some merit in that, even if it can arguably be seen to be driven by ugly envy.

However, it's been done in such a cack-handed way that they have forgotten how good humans are at sorting themselves out and ending up with a mostly decent result.

The London 2012 organisers had already priced anyone without a massive deposit account from buying the vast majority of the popular tickets anyway, quite rightly too as they are obliged to get return for the tax cash they have spent.

But while those who seem committed to egalitarianism and (presumably) re-distribution of wealth, are happy to see the rich restricted from buying seats at the expense of the less well off, they have woefully overlooked the more important aspect of re-distribution of value.

The value I placed on that ticket was quite literally zero. I would have happily given it away but for the fact that I had no-one to give it away to as no-one in my social circle was interested in one adult ticket (the spectre of over-bearing security and oppressive restrictions on what is allowed on the day of 'celebration' may have contributed to the disinterest, I reckon).

Someone, somewhere, would place a different value on it, though. If I was able to offer it for sale - in a free market - the person who valued it most highly would be able to see the event and be just as ecstatic as I would be for receiving, say, a fiver for something I personally thought was worth nothing.

They might believe it's a steal as they were prepared to pay only half of the £87 asking price, but got it for a fiver. I'd be dead happy that I got £5 for something which wasn't absorbent enough for me to even find value by wiping my bum with.

If the organisers are so dead set against re-distributing the natural value of Olympics tickets - by way of brutal laws involving £20k fines, no less - how on Earth can they be surprised that they are left with empty seats all over the place?

The only possible result is that just about everyone is left unsatisfied. Except, oddly enough, the privileged and the rich who the rules were meant to frustrate in the first place.

Meanwhile, Mrs and Mr SportsFan are allowed to believe that it's a corporate failure, instead of a massive mistake by those who swallow our taxes and refuse to recognise that a free swapping of value could have put bums on many of those empty seats the BBC, and others, are scratching their muddled heads about.

Youth unemployment

Youth unemployment has, apparently, reached a record high.

The latest official statistics showed that youth unemployment rose by 66,000 to 965,000 in the three months to the end of December, the highest level since comparable records began in 1992.

The youth unemployment rate was 20.5%, compared with a general unemployment rate of 7.9%.

Well, as both Timmy and the ASI point out, it is not as though we didn't warn you—the National Minimum Wage prices low value workers out of jobs.

And for the reasons that I have outlined above, the National Minimum Wage "achievement" should be thrown as Gordon—along with the rotten fruits and turds—when he is finally driven out of Downing Street.

And the unemployed should be on the front line because, of course, the NMW has had another effect: someone whose labour is worth less than £5.80 per hour will now never, ever get a job. And that means that they cannot get either the experience or finance to better themselves—and that means that they are condemned to a life rotting away on benefits, a seam of potential destroyed.

Of course, the above was written a little time ago: the NMW now stands at £4.92 per hour for 18 to 20-year-olds and £5.93 for those 21 and above. Which means that, of course, anyone who's labour is worth less than those figures—plus, of course, 12.8% Employers' NICs—will never get a job.

This applies particularly, of course, in more depressed areas of Britain—which also have the highest levels of general unemployment—because £4.92 (or £5.93) per hour is much higher relative to other wages in the area. Just as with the National Pay Deal, the National Minimum Wage takes no account of the differences in living costs in the various parts of Britain.

And, naturally, the situation is only going to get worse when the 2% rise in National Insurance kicks in—it is, after all, a direct tax on job-creation at a time when the economy is struggling. Brilliant.

Of course, young people could work for free—and, luckily, on W4MP (a recruitment site for MPs' bag-carriers and political party wonks) you can see many, many opportunities for young people to do precisely that.

It appears that MPs and political parties view researchers as being utterly valueless.

Or is it simply that MPs and political parties want to be able to pay the going rate for these jobs, i.e. nothing, whilst preventing businesses from doing the same...? Yes, I think it is.

Anyway, Timmy sums up the solution to this problem very neatly...

Us bastard capitalist neoliberal pig dogs said that the effect of a minimum wage would be to push the lowest skilled people out of the employed, into the unemployed, part of the labour force.

We now have that minimum wage and in our first proper recession since we have had, we’ve got 20% unemployment among the least skilled, the young, as opposed to 8% more generally.

We said this would happen and lo and behold, it has come to pass.

The solution is therefore obvious: abolish the minimum wage.

Quite.

Bang goes the neighbourhood

Now, your humble Devil is not going to get all outraged about this particular piece of Green idiocy because, unlike hyper-sensitive, po-faced, Leftoid tosspots, I just don't get offended about stuff like this.



However, I must admit that I am struggling—really struggling—to see what the point of this film is supposed to be. You know, assuming that the point isn't "we are going to kill anyone who doesn't subscribe to the new orthodoxy".

And I really cannot understand why anyone would think that it was funny. In the mealy-mouthed apology on the 10:10 website, the idiot organisers assert that...

Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn't and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.

I am not offended, but nor did I find it funny. Because it just isn't funny. At all. Because it lacks... well... jokes. Or even a joke.

Perhaps if the majority of the people in the video had reacted in some different way—with something other than horror*—then perhaps it might have been amusing.

But it just wasn't. And those who know me will testify to the fact that I have a pretty damn dark sense of humour.

I think that one of the things that made it very unfunny was the fact of human agency. Perhaps if the people had spontaneously exploded, there could have been some amusement value—it could even have been made into some kind of political point.

But there were people—those in a position of authority, in every case—who were actively detonating the naysayers. As someone who loathes the idea of authoritarian governments and structures, this is hardly going to appeal to me.

(And yes, businesses have structures, but I understand that when I sign up—I am certain that no contract that I have signed up to has ever intimated that, should I disagree with my boss on matters environmental (and I quite often do), he should have the right to sack me—let alone explode me.)

Over at EU Referendum, you can also view the "Making of..." video, where one of the kids involved says (slightly tongue-in-cheek. I hope)...

I think it is vital to explode children for a good cause...

Hmmmm.

In some ways, I can agree with 10:10's message. I don't think that we should waste energy, and reducing energy consumption in the West by 10% is possibly a laudable aim—if only to reduce my power bills.

But it is not a do-or-die situation, and I use just enough power as I need to. Because, you see, I do actually have to pay the bills.

And, given my attitude to catastrophic anthropogenic climate change (i.e. it ain't happening), I just don't give enough of a crap to try to do anything ab...

BANG!**

* It's true that the footballers seemed unconcerned. But then, we expect that of footballers. After all, they are generally too stupid to be self-aware and thus have no fear of death. Or spit-roasting.

** Maybe it is funny after all.

Chutzpah

Richard Murphy—a man retired from a profession only slightly less despised than that of lawyers—waxes lyrical about the right-wing blogosphere again.

[The "right wing blogosphere"] seem to be the ultimate definition of negativity—talk, and obstruction to all action for the common good.

I wonder if they ever actually created anything?

I'm sorry but... What?

I am a software designer and general creative artist. I have created hundreds of pieces of artwork for theatre shows, businesses, think tanks and charities, and designed and created a lot of software that enables people to be more productive in their work.

Richard, on the other hand, was an accountant.

And he is wondering if I have created anything...?

Timmy, of course, has a reply too...

Lefty Thinking Fail

Ok. So you're a certifiable GROLIE (but I repeat myself) and you've worked yourself up into a lather of righteous - oh the irony - indignation about the cost to the taxpayer of the Papal visit.

So what do you do?

Riot.