[Gllug] VACANCY: Junior Systems Support

[Hari Sekhon]

David Damerell wrote:
> On Wednesday, 9 Sep 2009, Christopher Hunter wrote:
>   
>> On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 16:03 +0100, David Damerell wrote:
>>     
>>> Thus a return to the jolly Victorian practice of allowing people to
>>> starve to death if they have no work. Brilliant!
>>>       
>> Yes.  Just like every other SUCCESSFUL country in the world.
>>     
>
> Fortunately this is not even remotely true. If it was, the choice
> between SUCCESS and not having people starving in the streets would
> hardly be the no-brainer you seem to think it is; you'd have to be
> some kind of monster to be willing to buy prosperity for yourself with
> other people's lives.
>   

Why do people only think about it from the point of view of you vs them? 
Why not take yourself out of the equation and look at it more 
objectively from the point of view of a scientist, selection and 
meritocracy etc etc... you might come to a different conclusion.

Looking at it from the "how much money do I have for the pub on friday 
night" is just the worst thing...

>> I'm getting a fixed 1.5% pay rise - that's all my current employer can
>> afford.  I'm in a very senior position, and that equates to just over
>> £1200 per year, of which I will actually see much less than half.  My
>> junior staff get a BIGGER percentage rise, and for some of them that
>> will mean £2250 more per year, most of which they'll keep.
>>     
>
> I guess your employer values them more than you, then. That's hardly
> my fault.
>   
lol.

Surely that's below the belt?

>>> There's little incentive for effort in the upper band because most
>>> upper-rate taxpayers are extremely well off compared to most of the
>>> people in Britain and, if they don't love money for money's sake, can
>>> live pretty comfortably. So why work harder?
>>>       
>> I've worked damned hard to get to where I am.
>>     
So too did I and from beginnings you wouldn't imagine and I wouldn't 
disclose.

Hard work and deserving counts for a lot, and that's what a socialist 
system takes away from.

> Everyone cannot succeed
Exactly the point, let the good succeed and enjoy success they have 
earned and worked hard to get and leave the rest as they are, don't 
artificially subsidize a worse group at the expense of a better group, 
it's anti-meritocratic.

-h

-- 
Hari Sekhon
http://www.linkedin.com/in/harisekhon

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug