Study: Liberals better at thinking outside the box
- Thread starter Jose Fly
- Start date
LondonCalling
New member
Sunshine, I run an Energy Supply company in the UK (one of the most competitive markets in the world).
I don’t, however own an ironic moustache. Nor a fixed gear bicycle.
I drive a Nissan when I’m not on the tube.
All of my staff earn more than the national median.
I do live in Central London, though.
If you’ve got something pertinent to ask, I’m all ears.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
"Sunshine...." :chuckle:
brewmama
New member
Ok, so you're just running your mouth about your own standard leftwing beliefs, and totally ignoring the questions asked and points made regarding this so-called "study". Fine. But you give the game away with your rhetoric about liberals being innovative, which is supposedly required today, and conservatives being merely tools that want to hang on to a past that no longer works. You totally miss that the only reason your welfare state is so "needed" is that you (and yours) have destroyed things that SHOULD be kept, that conservatives recognize, and liberals are so unable to see, that what makes a society worth living in is family, community, faith, etc. All those things that modern welfare and liberal states destroy, and then claim that a massive state is needed to replace.
LondonCalling
New member
Really?
Read it again.
The Study itself is superfluous. The results have been plain to anyone running a company for the last decade.
I run a company based in Europe. London, England. We are not America. We are, however, a very rich country. We are also both the beneficiaries, and victims of, how global economics is playing out.
I have a business to run. It requires highly trained analytical staff. We live and die on the customer not seeing mistakes. The level of competition is exactly where it should be: Extremely High. The graduates coming into my company are crippled with debt from education at the age of 23. Housing costs knobble them further. I hire the best and brightest at a good wage and they’re so hit by the crushing economic situation that I have to hire additional staff just to keep them productive. It’s got to the point that I’m flooding funds into property in order to give my staff somewhere to live. I turn over roughly £7million a year, and I’m having to engage in strategies that pre-2007 would only be dreamed of by FTSE 500 companies (who turn over in the billions and up).
This is where your nonsense falls flat.
I want my staff to have a life. To have families. Go to whatever Church rings their Bell. To be well. It suits me. They are more productive when happy.
I have a 7 person department dedicated to ensuring my staff don't burn out from stress. This isn't a hipster novelty; these kids are spending too much to simply exist, let alone strive in the workplace.
They cannot do this. These are some of the smartest people the country is producing. They’re resigned to either flat-sharing or a company owned rent well into their thirties. It’s not theirs. Not like yours or mine was when we were young.
I also need people to man the phones. I will not out-source my company to Asia. I need my front line staff to have access to my back-office. I need my customers to feel that their issues are being understood and dealt with. So I need my front line staff to be smart, educated, erudite, and content. So I need to pay them enough that they’re not worrying about paying their astronomical rent.
The Conservative model has, for far too long, spent all its energy keeping people like me happy (consultants earning stupid wages, paying silly amounts of tax), and propping up an property asset bubble. (The bubble already popped, but QE staved off the reality).Now we have to pull it together and make things work.
We need a new model that takes the money people like me are already spending on housing for staff to build new houses that they can buy for themselves. I want my staff free. Free to leave the company. I want to know they’re here because we’re doing things well, not because I put a roof over their head.
You’re damn right I’m running my mouth.
I’m running my mouth for something I believe in. And, despite repeatedly asking ‘Conservatives’ what it is they think they’re conserving, none of them have been forth coming.
One might do better to ask them why rather than question my motives.
If anyone has a solid argument against the above, I want numbers. Percentage of earnings vs mortgage/rent etc. I'm tired of Conservatives deriding our young folk as workshy. Mine work hard.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
The welfare/benefits state is needed because there is no such thing as 'full employment' and nor is everyone able to work. It's the only legitimate way to ensure that those unemployed have something at least to live on. Not everyone has a family/friend network to support them and charity would reach a miniscule percentage of the population if that was the only avenue available. Even with a social safety net there's people who fall through it and end up on the streets and what you propose would just increase those numbers. You have yet another rose tinted view of your particular ideal of society that is realistically untenable. Not everyone gets to live in a nice house surrounded by a picket fence and roses, and not everyone gets a chance at that either.
LondonCalling
New member
Hear, hear.
And productivity is based on aspiration, not fear of destitution.
Well said, that man.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
LondonCalling
New member
You got any vacancies going in your company?
If you have your wits about you, my door is never shut.
As indicated above, though, we play hard.
PM me a CV.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
I don't think you can receive PM's at the moment as you're a new member. If that's wrong then it's evidence that unfortunately I don't have my wits about me...
That being said I survived four years in Nottingham's administration department for Capital One without diving out of a window so I'm kinda used to the 'playing hard' aspects...
PureX
Well-known member
I agree with the study because I understand the definitions of conservatism, and liberalism, relative to human inclination and temperament. I have no idea what the temperament of the people who did the study is, and neither do you. Nor do I care (unlike yourself). All they've illuminated is a statistical probability that was already available to anyone with some basic common sense.
Actually, I would disagree with those terms being used in that way. I find that religionists are overwhelmingly given to "magical thinking", not intuition. While atheists rely way too much on a subjective conception of "objective evidence" rather than real in depth analysis. Magical thinking is not particularly intuitive, nor is objective evidence necessarily analytical.
Sadly, in recent years, the term "conservative" has become linked to the willful ignorance of a lot of truly stupid people. Quite unfairly, in my opinion. But then stupid people don't care about the accuracy of the terminology they use; all they're interested in is denying their own stupidity.
Which is exactly WHY they are so stupid to begin with.
Last edited:
All you have to do is go to Google Images and type 'Liberal Logic'
Exhibit A (there's hundreds)
Maybe I'll make a thread about how dumb liberals are, and manage to do it without some weak, biased 'study'.
Exhibit B
Liberals are better at thinking outside of reality- what this thread should say.
Exhibit A (there's hundreds)
Maybe I'll make a thread about how dumb liberals are, and manage to do it without some weak, biased 'study'.
Exhibit B
Liberals are better at thinking outside of reality- what this thread should say.
Last edited:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
All you have to do is go to Google Images and type 'Liberal Logic'
Well, for you I suppose that is all you have to do...
Still, at least you know how to navigate Google.
:thumb: