ByeBye Diesels

[lolsteve]

If politicians were on minimum wage no-one would do the job, why do a difficult job if you could shelf stack for the same money...

because you want to make the country a better place rather just in it for the money

[Toms306]

If politicians were on minimum wage no-one would do the job, why do a difficult job if you could shelf stack for the same money...

because you want to make the country a better place rather just in it for the money

And I think I'm naïve....

[Mattcheese31]

If politicians were on minimum wage no-one would do the job, why do a difficult job if you could shelf stack for the same money...

because you want to make the country a better place rather just in it for the money

If politicians were on minimum wage no-one would do the job, why do a difficult job if you could shelf stack for the same money...

because you want to make the country a better place rather just in it for the money

And I think I'm naïve....

I actually agree with Steve, I don't think it is that naive, have you ever done warehouse work? Think I'd take being an MP over that anyday

[Toms306]

Depends what you call warehouse work, I used to prefer shelf stacking and sorting out the warehouse much more than working as a till tart....if they'd allowed me to stay on doing that instead of the customer facing till work I'd most likely be in a completely different situation now. But I'm probably not the average person lol.

Being an MP obviously isn't physical, but its mentally difficult, there's a hell of a lot of thought that goes into everything, trying to keep as many people happy as possible, with a reasonably small amount of money so having to prioritise things correctly and persuading people which is the correct route to take. Then you cock up one decision, cause a lot of problems and its all on your shoulders which you then have to sort out somehow. Its really not a job I'd want to do, let alone for minimum wage.

[1616six]

Depends what you call warehouse work, I used to prefer shelf stacking and sorting out the warehouse much more than working as a till tart....if they'd allowed me to stay on doing that instead of the customer facing till work I'd most likely be in a completely different situation now.  But I'm probably not the average person lol.

Being an MP obviously isn't physical, but its mentally difficult, there's a hell of a lot of thought that goes into everything, trying to keep as many people happy as possible, with a reasonably small amount of money so having to prioritise things correctly and persuading people which is the correct route to take.  Then you cock up one decision, cause a lot of problems and its all on your shoulders which you then have to sort out somehow.  Its really not a job I'd want to do, let alone for minimum wage.

My father in law is a constituency agent/leader, councillor and various other roles within that area & I could never do anything like amount of work he does.

It's a ridiculously tough job!

Then again for that reason I keep completely out of anything to do with politics, I've never voted & don't plan on doing so.

[Orta]

Well my population comment stirred up a nice debate. In response to a couple of earlier posts and to just offer my spin...

Someone mentioned making people work for their dole money. Great ideas get em sweeping the streets etc anything that is productive to society and makes them to tired to riot and rob JDs. Issue with that is it breaks the minimum wage law. If you work you are entitled to minimum wage, which correct if I'm wrong, is still higher than basic job seeker's allowance (considering no kids etc).

In response to other posts about death sentences and things these would ruin the moral fabric of society and overall cause a general decay. The Germans could live with the anti-semetism because they weren't confronted with what they were doing with them in the camps... Whereas if we're talking hypothetically sterilisation is a much more humane solution as this allows that person to lead a full, rich, rewarding and long life just without having increased the population. This would slowly and in a controlled way bring the population down to more manageable levels.

Issues with this solution? How to sterilise huge volumes of people especially outside the western world. All the worlds economies and economic growth is off the back of ever expanding populations and need for consumption (which is why one day we will come unstuck) so a retracting population would cause issues (look at any nation with a decreasing population, eg Russia their economy despite huge reserves of natural resources are struggling, Germany's native population is actually decreasing to but the number are kept up thanks to immigration). The other major stumbling block would be how you are chosen. Lottery seems fair as "picking" the best and brightest would be subjective and it would just so happen that the guy making the decision is selected as are all his family and friends.

As I'm fairly right wing I obviously believe in a laisse faire state where if you want something you pay for
it. So if someone wants kids; fine YOU pay for them.if you want to be fat FINE you pay for healthcare. If you want to drive a fast car fine YOU pay for the fuel etc. I don't think the government should be responsible for regulating what we can / can't buy and shouldn't be responsible for paying people to sit around doing nothing. Issue is what do you do with these people? If u don't pay benefits people will turn to a life of crime... If you don't pay for people's healthcare you'll have a lot of corpses on your hands!

Or we can all just say balls to it all, keep on driving, reproducing and see what happens. I vote this!!

[Mattcheese31]

Depends what you call warehouse work, I used to prefer shelf stacking and sorting out the warehouse much more than working as a till tart....if they'd allowed me to stay on doing that instead of the customer facing till work I'd most likely be in a completely different situation now.  But I'm probably not the average person lol.

Being an MP obviously isn't physical, but its mentally difficult, there's a hell of a lot of thought that goes into everything, trying to keep as many people happy as possible, with a reasonably small amount of money so having to prioritise things correctly and persuading people which is the correct route to take.  Then you cock up one decision, cause a lot of problems and its all on your shoulders which you then have to sort out somehow.  Its really not a job I'd want to do, let alone for minimum wage.

sounds like looking after a family budget and running a household which I do everyday without pay

[Dum-Dum]

People will always argue that their job is the most difficult and that they should be paid more.

I could say that I feel that politicians should get paid less and that soldiers should get paid more but then you could argue that if you want to join the army and risk getting killed when you could actually earn the same money stacking shelves then thats your problem.

Obviously I agree that we shouldn't be paying people money to do nothing on benefits and that everyone should be given some work, no work, no money.

[Toms306]

Depends what you call warehouse work, I used to prefer shelf stacking and sorting out the warehouse much more than working as a till tart....if they'd allowed me to stay on doing that instead of the customer facing till work I'd most likely be in a completely different situation now.  But I'm probably not the average person lol.

Being an MP obviously isn't physical, but its mentally difficult, there's a hell of a lot of thought that goes into everything, trying to keep as many people happy as possible, with a reasonably small amount of money so having to prioritise things correctly and persuading people which is the correct route to take.  Then you cock up one decision, cause a lot of problems and its all on your shoulders which you then have to sort out somehow.  Its really not a job I'd want to do, let alone for minimum wage.

sounds like looking after a family budget and running a household which I do everyday without pay

Maybe a little more difficult if you've got 60 million people to look after though....

[Mattcheese31]

Why? It's like cooking, you just multiply the ingredients, kids these days honestly, you worry me

[Midnightclub]

MRW reading this thread..

[Rippthrough]

Can I celebrate yet?

How about now?

Now?

[toseland]

No-one ever goes through to being an MP and retains their noble thoughts for very long..


very very true statement in germany.. "if you put food in the trough the pigs will feed"

[nominous]

Nuclear propulsion allows a submarine to remain on operations without refuelling for huge lengths of time
Not using nuclear power to power a new submarine is designing it to be at a tactical disadvantage from the offset until someone comes up with something even better.

The germans and the scandis (and the ruskies) are all investing in diesel boats which can be quieter than equivalent nucs.
They dont have range, but they are capable of loitering just as well if not better since they can do that on batteries and fuel cells.
But a missile sub is about hiding the missiles. It's operational range doesn't need to be wide when the missile has a 7500mile radius of operation.
The point is that it's not a fat stationary target like a silo.
It could in somewhere in the north sea. It doesn't have to go far to be a strategic weapon/asset.
And for the price of one nuc you can have several diesels. Maintenance is cheaper naturally and you can have more boats cycling in/out of port to combat the lack of endurance.

A hunter killer as a nuc sure. If the task is patrolling the worlds oceans. But if it's coastal defense then again a diesel should be ok.
Going into Cold War II I'm sure having both types (missile and hunter) being nuc will be an advantage.
But it is a tremendous cost.

Issues with this solution? How to sterilise huge volumes of people especially outside the western world.

Give them something in return. Like money. No reason to limit it outside of the western world either.

[RetroPug]

Nuclear propulsion allows a submarine to remain on operations without refuelling for huge lengths of time
Not using nuclear power to power a new submarine is designing it to be at a tactical disadvantage from the offset until someone comes up with something even better.

The germans and the scandis (and the ruskies) are all investing in diesel boats which can be quieter than equivalent nucs.
They dont have range, but they are capable of loitering just as well if not better since they can do that on batteries and fuel cells.
But a missile sub is about hiding the missiles. It's operational range doesn't need to be wide when the missile has a 7500mile radius of operation.
The point is that it's not a fat stationary target like a silo.
It could in somewhere in the north sea. It doesn't have to go far to be a strategic weapon/asset.
And for the price of one nuc you can have several diesels. Maintenance is cheaper naturally and you can have more boats cycling in/out of port to combat the lack of endurance.

A hunter killer as a nuc sure. If the task is patrolling the worlds oceans. But if it's coastal defense then again a diesel should be ok.
Going into Cold War II I'm sure having both types (missile and hunter) being nuc will be an advantage.
But it is a tremendous cost.

Issues with this solution? How to sterilise huge volumes of people especially outside the western world.

Give them something in return. Like money. No reason to limit it outside of the western world either.

If non-nuclear submarines cannot travel far while undetectable and submerged and are restricted to a few hundred miles around the port and whilst staying undetectable and submerged they must either sit idle or return then surely if they are known to operate out of a certain port they will not be that robust of a defence. Yes, they can stay still and be ready to launch but that only works if you want to hit targets that are within that range and then once you've fired you must either a) submerge and stay where you are, b) submerge and race back to a known location (port) c) change location whilst on the surface.

If the enemy is switched on enough they will be able to to locate and attack the submarine in all three cases.

A nuclear submarine could fire a half payload of missiles and then disappear and still be a threat. Is it still defending our coastline or is it now in their backyard waiting to strike pre-emptively? They don't know, and if they guess, they'll not find its location anyway and if ports are being attacked it doesn't have to return and be destroyed as well.

I completely agree though, it is a terrifying amount of money and the case could be made by someone that we don't need these capabilities. I wouldn't pretend to know whether or not we do really.

[Kezzieboy]

Must...Not....bite

Go on, you know you want to, you're right about everything!

[nominous]

I completely agree though, it is a terrifying amount of money and the case could be made by someone that we don't need these capabilities. I wouldn't pretend to know whether or not we do really.

Time over time those that have either had them removed or give them up soon get walked all over.
I don't see us getting invaded by anyone, but at least we can sit at the big table and people listen to our voice over international matters.


I take your point about range, but I would think a modern diesel sub is capable of thousands of miles of range before refuelling.
But if the task is to loiter then less fuel is used.
That said, these days all ballistic missile subs are nuclear aren't they? perhaps maybe the Chinese have some that aren't ?
Is that more about projection of power (anywhere any time) than it is about the costs.
The military likes big things painted green

[unclebeast]

Methane Hydrate??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27021610

[toseland]

Sort aeroplanes out. One take off from a 747 could fuel a car round the world, twice!

and a fully loaded 747 per passanger has better MPG per person than a brand new ford ecoboost over it's journey.. that's pretty good
worst polluters are by far Local public transport in cities (busses and taxis in london for example)


old commercial vehicles are bad too, 

globally,  Oil tankers and other large supercarrier esque ships are horrific

[Piggy]

Lets not forget slaughter houses if you really wana point fingers.... They outdo all combustion engine powered transport.