Loz

Oh, grow up rendleharris.

Have you tried that 'sfc /scannow' command I mentioned earlier?? (though again, you might need a Win7 disk to hand). It is supposed to fix issues in the Windows software.

civilservant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > yes, cherrypicking, and the reference to Fullfact > is mischievous because it doesn't legitimise the > assertion Actually, it does. What do you say in my post that wasn't backed by that reference? But I admittedly did change that reference at the last minute - the original one I was going to post was http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37198653. But I like Fullfact more as a thoroughly neutral site. > until quite recently, women earned less than men in every age group, but it looks like there's been > a bit of recent play-field levelling (which was first reported in the Guardian?). > > what WOULD be interesting is to see whether this earnings advantage persists as the cohort ages Hang on - this is a big departure from your 'every metric'! But yes, I agree. With the newer generations seeing level full time earnings up to 39 year old (assuming anything within a few percent is "level"), the real problem area is the 40+ age groups. And the question is: is this a generational thing or a mother thing? If it's generational, then it will probably correct itself over the mid-term future. But, if it's a mother thing, then then best solution would be to encourage more men to take on the primary carer role, or even a true shared parental role. The new 'shared parenting leave' has, I think, only exacerbated the problem, not helped fix it. I did see an article a few weeks ago regarding pay differential of men who do take on primary carer, but sadly I can't find it anywhere.

Oh, please rendelharris. You really should take note of your own advice. I initially wrote a nice, balanced post to add to the debate. If you want to add or debate those, then fine. But you waded in, unfairly, with the cherrypicking accusations - ironically backed with a set of utterly cherrypicked stats. Did you really not expect it to come back to you? If you keep it clean, I will.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I do not have a Windows 7 disk and how would I and > copy my own personal data over. ?? If you can get your machine up, then you can back up your personal data to a USB drive or similar. Then rebuild your PC and then bring the data back. But, if you don't have a Win7 disk, you'll probably need Christian to do this part anyway.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Massive cherrypicking Loz: if you look at the > article you've linked, the chart shows that across > all workers (the light blue bars), 16-17 is the > only age group where women earn more than men. > 18-21 women are 3% worse off, 22-29 4%, 30-39 12%, > 40-49 25%, 50-59 27%, 60+ 22%. Sorry, but you accuse me of cherry picking? Ha ha. My post showed a balanced view of how sometimes men are better off and sometime women are better off. Yours was just pure cherry picking. Though it did at least agree (even if accidentally) with my original point that civilservants original proposal that women were behind 'on every metric' was wrong. The problem with your figures is that people are mixing in full-time and part-time roles, something the head of the ONS described as 'misleading'. Most statistical studies into the pay gap divide the workforce into 5 cohorts - Fulltime 20-29 (sometimes 18-29), FT 30-39, FT 40-49, FT 50+ and part-time. Once you separate full and part time earning a completely different picture emerges. And, taking gender away, do you really expect part time workers to earn the same as full time workers?? > "Part time women earn way more than part time men" - only, according to your article, in the 16-17, > 22-29 and 30-39 age groups, in all the others men earn more. OK, as an overall average across all ages, part time women earn significantly more than part time men. Happy? And, one for the Rendel Cherrypicker, because you'll also know that this is a curious stat, in that even though women are way, way in front here, because part time work pays less than full time and there are far more women in part time work than men, it still results in an overall negative effect on the earnings gap. Here's another source for your cherry picker: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37198653 Anyway, my assertion was that the gender pay gap is a lot more complicated than some would have you believe. Both you post and my post back that premise. Yay. (I see you completely ignored the university entrance stuff. Did your cherry picker swerve away and crash on that one?)

Foxy, If you had a couple of duff sectors on your disk, then the data transferred from those sectors would have been corrupted. Might be better to reinstall windows on the new disk and copy your own personal data over.

civilservant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > girls actually live, here and now, in a world where they > are worse off on every metric, and no sign of it getting better. You really need to stop reading the Guardian! It's a bit 'post truth' on stuff like this. Full time women in their 20's earn more than equivalent males Full time women in their 30's earn the same than equivalent males Full time women in their 40's and above earn significantly less than equivalent males. Part time women earn way more than part time men. But part timers in general earn less (per hour) than full timers. So, it's much more complicated that some would like to say. https://fullfact.org/economy/UK_gender_pay_gap/ Maybe equalising maternity and paternity leave would go a long was towards correcting this? And, as an extra, current university entrance students are 67% female. Men outnumber women significantly in STEM subjects, but women outnumber men significantly in medicine and dentistry.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So if after the next General Election a group of > people do not like the result... > ... will Parliament decide who wins.. and > becomes prime minister. In a word: yes. Foxy, I hate to break it to you, but you don't actually elect who becomes PM. The current PM being a case in point. The PM (and, thus, the government) is merely the leader of the party who can command a majority of the HoC, so Parliament does in a way decide who is PM. Should parliament carry a vote of no confidence in the government, then it will fall and fresh elections held OR if another government can be formed, it will be allowed to do so. If, as an example, there are 251 Tories and 250 Labour MPs elected, then a Tory will be PM. Should one of those Tories defect to Labour, there could be a change of PM and government, no election required. Because the heart of the UK democracy is the House of Commons. Its what you voted for when you voted for Brexit, or didn't you realise that?

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Angelina Wrote: > > > It's also interesting that this is all focused on > > Trump and not the actual half of the American > > citizens who voted for him... > > It's worth noting that actually only 27% of those > entitled to vote voted for Trump, so 73% of > Americans didn't vote for him. As with Brexit, > galvanising apathetic voters would seem to be the > real problem...easier said than done. No, it's not worth noting that. At all. God, I hate this ridiculous argument that keeps popping up in so many places that 'x% of people DIDN'T vote for whatever', by somehow taking into account the unknown views of people that couldn't be bothered enough to get off their backsides to exercise their right to vote. Don't care if it's Trump, Brexit or what video to borrow from the store (OK, showing my age there): not voting is accepting and validating the result, whatever it is.

Tis very good news, especially as parliament seems to have to ratify the final deal. If it is looking like a terrible deal and banks and other major industries start looking like they'll move, then MPs might find themselves under pressure to not go ahead. Also, it leaves much room for the House of Lords to cause quite a bit of slowing down of the process. May does not want to go into the 2020 election with Brexit coming to a bitter crescendo. Even the amendments being proposed by the otherwise-useless Corbyn might help to slow it down.

Ebeb2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > With the planned UK-US deals, we'll all be driving > Chryslers or Ford pick-up trucks. ... and we have spray on cheese from a can. And any non-spray on cheese will be that dodgy orange colour.

Try advertising on the business section of the forum as well.

apbremer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry but you miss my point totally. Brussels is > hugely undemocratic, expensive and massively > corrupt. The euro is just a German racket. The > whole rotten edifice is tottering. ... so wouldn't it be deliciously ironic if the undemocratic, expensive, but oh-so-British House of Lords holds up or even stops the whole Brexit process. Hopefully by democratically pushing it back to the people for ratification once we see the deal on offer.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Who's 'we'? The UK. You can substitute 'the UK' for we in my post (adjusting the grammar accordingly) and it still holds true.

Have you tried booting into Safe Mode and doing a system file check? Boot, open a CMD window and type 'sfc /scannow' (you might need a Win 7 disk to hand).

Get a Gas Safe person (used to be CORGI) in to have a look and do a safety check on it. Old gas appliances can be lethal. https://www.gassaferegister.co.uk/

Once we completely piss off the Europeans (as we probably will), we may not have a lot in the way of choices.

What make is it, Foxy? If it's a Dell, they might make a repair disk uploadable for you.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But looking at such an extreme example as the top ten richest people in the world isn't an answer to > my question, Loz. If you can show me a statistic showing that 30% of people earning between ?100k > and ?500k are from poor backgrounds I'll gladly cede the point. That's not the top. That's 'somewhere up there, not the very top but sort of near it. Kind of.' And I might be bothered to do that if you define what 'poor backgrounds' means. Because I'd probably get the numbers together and you would then change the definition. Like you just did with your other question. Anyway, I get the distinct impression from your talk of pyramids early that all this stuff about people getting to the top isn't actually about social mobility at all. You are just annoyed there is a 'top'.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Come on Loz - looking at the top 10 richest people > in the world? It's a tiny and extreme sample. It > tells you almost nothing about social mobility > generally. I answer rendelharris's question: "> Yes, so in theory everyone can reach the top...do you really see much sign of that in practice?" Even to the point I quoted it at the top of my post. If you don't like the answer, it's often best to blame the question. Not the answer.

rendellharris: "Yes, so in theory everyone can reach the top...do you really see much sign of that in practice?" Me: "Here's a list of the richest. 30% came from nowhere and 30% from average backgrounds" rendelharris: "Is that all?" Conclusion: rendelharris will never, ever be happy.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, so in theory everyone can reach the top...do > you really see much sign of that in practice? Here's a list of the supposed 10 richest people in the world. Their backgrounds are rather interesting. I'd say that only two of them (Koch brothers) directly inherited their wealth and two (Gates, Buffett) came from rich parents who no doubt smoothed their path (though both of them are brilliant in their own right). But six of them have reached the top from various backgrounds from very poor to middle-class. In Carlos Slim's case, you could say his father was doing OK, but he came from a penniless background, so you could argue it a takes a couple of generations sometimes. Certainly the majority on this list do not come from old money. So certainly more than a few 'signs' there of anyone being able to reach the top. ----------------------- 1. Bill Gates - Parents was a pretty well off, to say the least. 2. Amancia Ortega (Zara) - Son of a railway worker. 3. Warren Buffett - Son of a Congressman/stockbroker. Rich parents. 4. Jeff Bezos (Amazon) - Son of an Exxon engineer. Grandfather owned a ranch in Texas. 5. Charles Koch - Inherited. 6. David Koch - Inherited. 7. Carlos Slim - Father was a penniless immigrant, who built up a decent sized business in Mexico. 8. Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook) - Son of a dentist and a psychiatrist. 9. Larry Ellison (Oracle) - Father died when he was a small boy, mother gave him up to his aunt and uncle, a middle class couple. 10. Ingvar Kamprad (Ikea) - Raised on a farm in a small village in Sweden The list was from http://indianexpress.com/article/business/richest-people-in-the-world-bloomberg-bill-gates-warren-buffett-mark-zuckerberg-jeff-bezos-koch-brothers-2878601/

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fair question Otta: Waitrose have stopped paying extra on Sundays or for overtime for all new > employees, Morrisons, Tesco and Wilko have all cut their overtime and Sunday rates, Cafe Nero, John > Lewis and Asda have all stopped giving staff a free meal to claw back some of the costs of the > minimum wage Waitrose? John Lewis? I thought these were all owned and run by their staff?

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In any case, income equality is only one indicator > of economic wellbeing and not a particularly good > one. If I earn ?50,000 a year and my boss earns > ?500,000 a year, if my income drops to ?40,000 and > his drops to ?480,000 the inequality between us > has lessened by ?10K, but I'm still worse off. That's why inequality dropped quite markedly in the months following the 2008 crash. But quids' underlying point is correct - that people of certain political leanings harp on about such indices right up to the point where it becomes troublesome to their argument.