In article , Kay
writes
There is the concept of relative poverty - being unable to share in the
lifestyle that all around you take for granted, or seeing any means to do
so.


Oh no Kay that's not true. If it were then lots of poor people would be
stealing and committing crimes all over the place and yet they are not.

I don't have holidays but i don't go round blowing up aeroplanes to stop
others enjoying themselves! Nor do i steal plasma TVs or shower units
(which i could do with)
I suspect many of them have already got a lot of money via drugs , black
economy or selling stolen goods etc.
--
Janet Tweedy

On 10/08/2011 17:25, in article ,
"Janet Tweedy" wrote:

In article , Kay
writes
There is the concept of relative poverty - being unable to share in the
lifestyle that all around you take for granted, or seeing any means to do
so.


Oh no Kay that's not true. If it were then lots of poor people would be
stealing and committing crimes all over the place and yet they are not.

No, that doesn't follow. Not everyone responds the same way. In anther post
I said

" It's not an excuse. When even Morrisons has ceased giving out
applications,
and a well qualified young man feels himself lucky to have secured a
temporary part time summer job at Burger King, then the law abiding young
can be forgiven for sinking into depression, and the less law abiding are
more likely to go on the rampage."

The more unequal you make a society, the greater the risk that some people
will feel that they haven't got much stake in that society and therefore no
need to behave according the rules of that society.

On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 18:02:38 +0100, Kay
wrote:




On 10/08/2011 17:25, in article ,
"Janet Tweedy" wrote:

In article , Kay
writes
There is the concept of relative poverty - being unable to share in the
lifestyle that all around you take for granted, or seeing any means to do
so.


Oh no Kay that's not true. If it were then lots of poor people would be
stealing and committing crimes all over the place and yet they are not.

No, that doesn't follow. Not everyone responds the same way. In anther post
I said

" It's not an excuse. When even Morrisons has ceased giving out
applications,
and a well qualified young man feels himself lucky to have secured a
temporary part time summer job at Burger King, then the law abiding young
can be forgiven for sinking into depression, and the less law abiding are
more likely to go on the rampage."

The more unequal you make a society, the greater the risk that some people
will feel that they haven't got much stake in that society and therefore no
need to behave according the rules of that society.

That works for the financial wizards, after all. They're another
ingredient in the very complex mix which creates alienation.

--
Mike.

In message , Mike Lyle
writes
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 18:02:38 +0100, Kay
wrote:

On 10/08/2011 17:25, in article ,
"Janet Tweedy" wrote:

In article , Kay
writes
There is the concept of relative poverty - being unable to share in the
lifestyle that all around you take for granted, or seeing any means to do
so.

Oh no Kay that's not true. If it were then lots of poor people would be
stealing and committing crimes all over the place and yet they are not.

No, that doesn't follow. Not everyone responds the same way. In anther post
I said

" It's not an excuse. When even Morrisons has ceased giving out
applications,
and a well qualified young man feels himself lucky to have secured a
temporary part time summer job at Burger King, then the law abiding young
can be forgiven for sinking into depression, and the less law abiding are
more likely to go on the rampage."

The more unequal you make a society, the greater the risk that some people
will feel that they haven't got much stake in that society and therefore no
need to behave according the rules of that society.

That works for the financial wizards, after all. They're another
ingredient in the very complex mix which creates alienation.

And much of what they have been doing is illegal by the normal standards
for lay people. They sell stuff they don't own, they buy up chunks
of a bad debt, and then place 'bets' on the company failing.
--
Gordon H
Remove "invalid" to reply

On 10/08/2011 18:41, in article , "Sacha"
wrote:


Society has *never* been equal, never in history, it's just not in the
nature of man or the scheme of things. BUT what has changed now is
peoples' sense of entitlement.

What has also changed is the level of inequality as measured for example by
the proportion of wealth owned by the richest few and the disparity between
the highest and lowest remuneration within an organisation.

In message , Kay
writes

On 10/08/2011 18:41, in article , "Sacha"
wrote:

Society has *never* been equal, never in history, it's just not in the
nature of man or the scheme of things. BUT what has changed now is
peoples' sense of entitlement.

What has also changed is the level of inequality as measured for example by
the proportion of wealth owned by the richest few and the disparity between
the highest and lowest remuneration within an organisation.

True.
We are amateurs at rioting in England, we should follow the example of
the French, - they really know how to riot, and they even do it with
tractors and heavy trucks!
--
Gordon H
Remove "invalid" to reply

In article , Kay
writes
What has also changed is the level of inequality as measured for example by
the proportion of wealth owned by the richest few and the disparity between
the highest and lowest remuneration within an organisation.


Not to be splitting hairs but if it weren't for the select few who
accumulated a fair amount of money we wouldn't have some very lovely
gardens to visit, they'd all be little cardboard box homes and estates.
No Highgrove, Stowe, or Munstead Wood, no Hampton Court, Coton Manor,
Cottesbrooke.

(To get the thread back to gardening)
--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

In message , Janet Tweedy
writes

Not to be splitting hairs but if it weren't for the select few who
accumulated a fair amount of money we wouldn't have some very lovely
gardens to visit, they'd all be little cardboard box homes and estates.
No Highgrove, Stowe, or Munstead Wood, no Hampton Court, Coton Manor,
Cottesbrooke.

(To get the thread back to gardening)

I didn't even look at the entry fees, we did go to Hampton Court from a
Thames cruiser, but that was in the 70s, and I only remember the maze.
--
Gordon H
Remove "invalid" to reply

In article , says...

In article , Kay
writes
What has also changed is the level of inequality as measured for example by
the proportion of wealth owned by the richest few and the disparity between
the highest and lowest remuneration within an organisation.


Not to be splitting hairs but if it weren't for the select few who
accumulated a fair amount of money we wouldn't have some very lovely
gardens to visit, they'd all be little cardboard box homes and estates.

With cottage gardens.

No Highgrove, Stowe, or Munstead Wood, no Hampton Court, Coton Manor,
Cottesbrooke.

Let's just remember that those very lovely gardens were created and maintained by the skills
knowledge and sweat of very low paid working class labour.

Janet.

In article , Styx
Lawyer writes
Not to be splitting hairs but if it weren't for the select few who
accumulated a fair amount of money we wouldn't have some very lovely
gardens to visit, they'd all be little cardboard box homes and estates.

With cottage gardens.


Judging by what the average home owner wants (according to the media) it
will be a hot tub, decking, tree ferns some sort of structure oh yes and
maybe three plants but 'easy' ones!
--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

On 10/08/2011 22:57, in article , "Sacha"
wrote:

This has been the norm in many countries for centuries. It has not led
to widespread rioting and looting by a comparatively small number who
think themselves untouchable by law.

There are too many variables to draw direct conclusions from other
countries.

That's one of the consequences of a more mobile society. I have no relatives within 150miles. The reasonable advice to the unemployed to be prepared to move to where the work is has the side effect of moving young families away from the extended family and settling them into an area where they know no-one.

In message , Sacha
writes
On 2011-08-10 19:18:11 +0100, Kay said:

What has also changed is the level of inequality as measured for
example by
the proportion of wealth owned by the richest few and the disparity between
the highest and lowest remuneration within an organisation.

This has been the norm in many countries for centuries. It has not led
to widespread rioting and looting by a comparatively small number who
think themselves untouchable by law.

Has the "Arab Spring" completely escaped your notice?
--
Gordon H
Remove "invalid" to reply

In message , Sacha
writes

Society has *never* been equal, never in history, it's just not in the
nature of man or the scheme of things.

It has never been more unequal than it is today!
Executive pay rose by 30%, whilst many public sector workers have had
pay cuts in real terms!
--
Gordon H
Remove "invalid" to reply

In article ,
Janet writes

I just don't agree. The rich have always been there, but at the other
end of the economic spectrum nobody in Britain today, *has to* endure the
terrible social conditions Dickens wrote about. The "bottom of the heap"
today, have choices, support and advantages that did not exist before the
welfare state.

Janet.



I suppose they are what some call 'relatively' poor!

Perhaps there is also the fact that a proportion those with no jobs are
actually unemployable due to attitude, lack of school attendance
/education, and too high expectations,
--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk