Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 13 Nov 2006 19:42 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:4558D5BD.3C15D376(a)hotmail.com... > >> >>T Wake wrote: >> >> >>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Finding the right thing that's profitable isn't always that easy. >>>>> >>>>>It is easy. People around here charge $50 for 15 minutes' worth >>>>>of housecleaning and they get it. >>>> >>>>They do ? >>>> >>>>I'm sure they wouldn't here. >>> >>>They do in some places - mainly where people are inordinately rich and >>>strapped for time. I know people who pay for their laundry to be washed >>>and >>>ironed for them. The mind does, indeed, boggle. >> >>I can't see the 'going rate' being $200 / hour though. > > > Not for a single person although I have worked for a guy who did pay around > ?3k per week for his cleaning services. Sadly I never enquired as to the > size of his house, how many cleaners or what the cleaners did (or wore...) Part and parcel of the cost of cleaning has to do with the value of the items in the house being cleaned. Someone who has multiple millions invested in decorative art pieces sitting around has to pay more for cleaners than someone living in an ex-council semi-detached hovel with charity shop furniture and decor. > This guy paid that sort of money as well: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/6137550.stm Ask your friendly plumber what he charges to install a $50 toilet and what he gets for doing the same job/work installing a $2000 toilet. The value of the work increases along with his personal risk of possible loss should he break the toilet while doing the work.
From: unsettled on 13 Nov 2006 19:50 Ben Newsam wrote: > On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 12:00:44 -0500, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >>In article <n1ifl29hhnqark8djruc1ga4u3p3b0p37n(a)4ax.com>, >>ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk says... >> >>>But seriously, it isn't worth worrying about much, the main effect >>>(here anyway) is that there is an ever-widening range of jobs that are >>>paid the same (minimum) wage or ever so slightly above it, and that is >>>my main objection to it. If the statutory minimum is set too low, it >>>doesn't have the intended effect of protecting people from being paid >>>less than a living wage, and if it is set too high then a proper job >>>market cannot exist at the lower end. A conundrum. >> >>hy must every job pay above the "living wage"? Who decides what a >>"living wage" is? You? > > > Not me. Hardly. Please note that I am not particularly in favour of a > statutory minimum wage. The conundrum remains: if it is seen as a Good > Thing that wages can be forced lower than the minimum that whoever has > decided it is possible to live on, then it is not possible at the same > time to deny that the system (let's say capitalist although people > don't seem to like that word) actually requires the existence of > people enduring the direst poverty in order for that system to work > properly. No one is forced to work, let alone in some particular job or another. If a job is worth less than a "living wage" it should be available to be done by someone who doesn't need that particular job to live. It might be a part time second job, or a kid might do it. Several of you keep promoting this false dilemma.
From: Eeyore on 13 Nov 2006 19:52 unsettled wrote: > T Wake wrote: > > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > >>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > >>>T Wake wrote: > >>> > >>>>Nationalised health care does not suffer from the problems you mentioned > >>>>so I have no idea why you think it would make it worse. > >>> > >>>Nationalized anything is a form of socialism. > > > > > > Ok, so what? You have a nationalised military - bloody socialists. > > No it isn't. It started out part of the federal government. And so is our NHS ! Graham
From: Eeyore on 13 Nov 2006 19:55 unsettled wrote: > What sort of preventive treatment is there for cancer? Good diet avoiding excessive red meat and processed foods and including plenty of fresh fruit and veg. Not smoking. Avoidance of exposure to carcinogens. Graham
From: unsettled on 13 Nov 2006 19:57
Ben Newsam wrote: > On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:37:38 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> > wrote: > >>T Wake wrote: >> >>>See, if you had an NHS then you would realise doctors do indeed take on new >>>patients, even if they have existing conditions. >> >>Is that required, or voluntary? > > > It is just the way the system works. Required, if you like. Doctors > have a contract with the health service, and presumably the devil is > in the detail. The question is not answered. Is a doctor required to accept new patients? Can a doctor refuse to accept a particular new patient while accepting others? Let's say I hear about a doctor who is spectacularly successful in treating some condition I happen to have. Do I have to wait till one or several of his patients die before he'll take my case? Is there a waiting list? If my taxes are paying for physician services, is there any assurance I'll get one who is significantly qualified to handle my issues? Or is it simply pot luck, as in "all doctors are equally qualified"? |