"You're just not worth it."

[SikhWarrioR]

if lord fraud dies tomorrow I'd fucking cheer.

If ANY conservative dies I'm happy.......All we have to do now is work out a way to stop conservatives breeding new conservatives

 

[SikhWarrioR]

He is only saying what the rest of his party and their supporters think.
They are not known for their altruism and compassion are they?

I dont know arms makers, banks, corporations and the conservatives themselves seem to be well looked after by each other

 

[likesfish]

Fuckwits closed down the remploy factories that actually provided work and supported employment because they wanted disabled people in the main workforce as if employers are leaping at the opportunity to employ disabled people.
Being able to pay them a pittance might be attractive to some

 

[killer b]

It takes a special kind of odious cunt to think of people in terms of how much their disability reduces their labour value.

perhaps, but employers clearly think in this way every day - hence why unemployment is running at 50% for disabled people (assuming the figures upthread are correct). But the answer to that isn't to both tell people with disabilities they're worth less than everyone else, while allowing bosses to undercut able-bodied employees. Subsidies, supported employment places, companies like Remploy, communism... but these vermin are market zealots (at least as far as we're concerned), so the only way that looks logical to them is the worst.

 

[likesfish]

A disabled worker may or may not be as productive as a non disabled worker depends on the role.
Remploy worked produced army uniforms and the like until some fuckwit decided those contracts had to go to the market remploy closed down the odious and rare combat uniform 85 pattern came out rare because it's average life expectancy was about two weeks before a pocket fell off
Also fuckwitted treasury rules that stuff in stores counts against the budget every year so sorry family that survived a natural disasters here's some plastic tarpaulins the UK has no stockpile of heavy duty tents anymore

 

[killer b]

A disabled worker may or may not be as productive as a non disabled worker depends on the role.

Yeah, absolutely - I think a lot of employers claiming the bottom line is just cover for prejudice as much as anything else.

 

[Awesome Wells]

BBC news are saying more to come about Freud.

Where have they said this?

The poor woman they had on meaning, with a disability, looked close to tears having to defend the disabled.

 

[butchersapron]

Just to deal with the facts/numbers behind the less productive argument (to go along with the use of productive of the authors and most mainstream economists understanding).

But there's a wider more interesting question here (to me anyway) - are workers with disabilities overwhelmingly concentrated in those sectors that are unproductive in more radical understandings - i.e are they predominantly in sectors that don't produce surplus value and so don't contribute to the total increase of value or capital, instead relying on transfers from those other productive sectors?

Capital has sought to reduce wages (social and direct) to all workers across this section as it's effectively a zero sum game there - whereas workers in surplus value producing sectors are in a more complicated situation where productivity rises can see profits rise whilst wages do as well. So chopping away at parts of the min wage has been part of state/capitals tactic for some time now, laying the grounds for various exemptions and opt-outs. The wider min wage they want to keep though, as it helps forces down wages for those in those productive sectors at the unskilled end of the scale.

If this is true, the politically crude way that Freud expressed this doesn't mean that capital is targeting this sectors because they're full of people with disabilities but because they're not producing for capital. Does anyone really think if these sectors were pumping out a high rate of surplus value with the same workers they would be targeted in this way? So bollocks about nazis and death camps is not only not accurate it's not going to be much use in identifying where and how to fightback - beyond the most crude propaganda anyway. Which, of course, has it's uses - but not so much in a discussion.

 

[andysays]

Agreed, we shouldn't be viewing this as the aberrant outburst of one politician (which is how Cameron is clearly desperate to paint it) but as glimpse behind the curtain at what ruling class/capital are actually thinking/hoping to do.

References to Freudian slips are amusing in this context, but not especially helpful.

 

[brogdale]

Agreed, we shouldn't be viewing this as the aberrant outburst of one politician (which is how Cameron is clearly desperate to paint it) but as glimpse behind the curtain at what ruling class/capital are actually thinking/hoping to do.

References to Freudian slips are amusing in this context, but not especially helpful.

Yes Andy, I think that's right. When we listen to the recording of Freud we appear to be listening to the stuttering thought-process of an unreconstructed financial capitalist; he seems to be struggling to reconcile his perception of the potential political credit derived from appearing to 'do something' for the disabled, with the bigger picture of eroding the universal nature of minimum wage.

 

[brogdale]

Notable that Clegg's attempt to distance from/trash Freud presents his comments as questioning (disabled) people's worth to society, rather than the banker's actual concern about their ability to produce value for employers.

Speaking on LBC’s Call Clegg radio show, he said: “What is wrong is to say someone is worth less than someone else in society. The law is the law: you have got to pay the minimum wage.

“If you are employing someone to do a full day’s work, you cannot … short change people or pay less.”

 

[andysays]

Notable that Clegg's attempt to distance from/trash Freud presents his comments as questioning (disabled) people's worth to society, rather than the banker's actual concern about their ability to produce value for employers.

Mixed in with all of this is the now-dominant idea that (disabled) people's worth to society, is utterly linked into, not to say identical with their ability to produce value for employers.

So we also have the policy that all disabled people should be pushed towards regular employment, on the claimed basis that it will necessarily be "good for them" but on the actual basis that it will be "good for society" viewed as synonymous with "good for employers"

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

David Cameron distanced himself from the comments, saying they "were not the views of anyone in government".

I guess he missed off "except our Welfare Minister".

 

[Pickman's model]

A disabled worker may or may not be as productive as a non disabled worker depends on the role.
Remploy worked produced army uniforms and the like until some fuckwit decided those contracts had to go to the market remploy closed down the odious and rare combat uniform 85 pattern came out rare because it's average life expectancy was about two weeks before a pocket fell off
Also fuckwitted treasury rules that stuff in stores counts against the budget every year so sorry family that survived a natural disasters here's some plastic tarpaulins the UK has no stockpile of heavy duty tents anymore

i always thought blunkett was quite productive, more so than some sighted home secretaries.

not always in a good way, mind.

 

[likesfish]

Yeah, absolutely - I think a lot of employers claiming the bottom line is just cover for prejudice as much as anything else.

Or can't be arsed too expensive too make modifications or just clueless

 

[brogdale]

Mixed in with all of this is the now-dominant idea that (disabled) people's worth to society, is utterly linked into, not to say identical with their ability to produce value for employers.

So we also have the policy that all disabled people should be pushed towards regular employment, on the claimed basis that it will necessarily be "good for them" but on the actual basis that it will be "good for society" viewed as synonymous with "good for employers"

Oh yes, but Clegg is very obviously not saying it is wrong to say that someone is worth less than someone else to employers. He doesn't disagree with Freud.

 

[Schmetterling]

The government/conservatives, for at least the last four years, has/have been working hard at reinforcing the idea that benefit/tax credit claimants are shirkers/scroungers. Someone on TV defended Freud by highlighting that he, Freud, went on to say, at the side event, that if a disabled person is paid £2.00 per hour, the rest/shortfall will/could be made up with tax credits/benefits (I don’t think it was just the Adam Smith Thingy chap proposing this). So, Mr Freud, your party says that there are too many benefit/tax credit claimants and that they are scroungers/non-deserving but you will accept disabled people being paid less than the minimum hourly rate and then go on to make them dependent on the very benefits/tc’s you say people are scrounging/undeserving of? Que?


I think the next move will be to widen the definition of who is disabled in order to include more people within that framework, leading to more people’s hourly rate being lowered; legally, of course. (Long-term unemployed – struggles with depression – not responding to our nudge unit/therapy – worth less – doesn’t have to be paid minimum hourly rate.)


Commentators defending Freud by saying he was only thinking aloud are really shooting themselves, and Mr Freud in the foot; as, if this was an unguarded utterance, it really only demonstrates what he really, truly believes. My favourite phrase for UKip applies here too: A wolf in wolf’s clothing; not even pretending to be a sheep.


I see similarities between the devaluing of people with disabilities in this country, now and the devaluing of same in 1930s Germany. Stating they are worth less is only the beginning, the testing of waters. Leading to more propaganda on whether they are worth living/supporting (very negative way of thinking, I know, but worth being aware of) being put out.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Disability. Employment. Rights.

Any thoughts?

http://www.theguardian.com/society/...d-apology-comment-disabled-people-mimimu-wage

What, besides "glass the fucker"?
Freud is a tosser. He came from a coddled family background, and has a coddled educational background. He went from uni to working in the City for big bucks. He's got as much of a clue about the reality of economic life for disabled people as my big toes have of the taste of caviar. I'd urge the two-bob cunt to do the honourable thing and resign, but expecting honour from his ilk is like expecting a duck to recite Wordsworth - it'll never happen.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Freud and the rest of them have lots to apologise for, this is the man(of jewish ancestry) who also described disabled people on benefits as 'stock'

its just been on Ch4, the Adam Smith twerp was defending the statement, this is going to expose the Tories, Milliband actually woke up a bit today and gave a robust response in parliament.

Freud's Jewishness is irrelevant. It's his cuntitude and class attitudes that are relevant.

 

[ViolentPanda]

why is his jewish ancestry of relevance?

It isn't.

IMO what's more of relevance is how David Cameron disavowed Freud, and then apparently used the memory of his dead son to deflect any insinuation that Tory policies on disabled people might be at all cuntish.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Disability isn't a class issue, and yes, Labour would be different.

Mate, disability is very much a class issue, given that the working class are asymmetrically-affected by life-limiting health conditions, workplace injuries etc.

 

[ViolentPanda]

In particular, he's talking about people with 'certain types of mental disability'. I wonder what he means by that?

Basically "if your IQ falls below a certain arbitrary level, we'll exploit you harder than your more intellectually-capable peers".

In any case, the words 'not worth it' say everything that needs to be said about this odious man's attitude to any worker. It's just about the money that can be made off people.

Of course.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I think the next move will be to widen the definition of who is disabled in order to include more people within that framework, leading to more people’s hourly rate being lowered; legally, of course. (Long-term unemployed – struggles with depression – not responding to our nudge unit/therapy – worth less – doesn’t have to be paid minimum hourly rate.)

I think the opposite may well happen, and may indeed be the intention. That is, the consequences of accepting/being pushed into the category disabled, will be so marginalizing - being economically and culturally placed on the edge/outside of normal/able/hardworking society - that people will avoid it at all costs. It will become one of the new 'work house tests', disciplining us all, the 'worth less' disabled, the worthy disabled and the able.

Of course the rhetoric surrounding it will be that of inclusion. A great success will be trumpeted; the relatively small numbers who submit to being worth less than the minimum wage, will be held up as proof of the caring success of inclusion, all the while ignoring the poverty of the minimum wage itself.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Pickman's model]

Freud and the rest of them have lots to apologise for, this is the man(of jewish ancestry) who also described disabled people on benefits as 'stock'

its just been on Ch4, the Adam Smith twerp was defending the statement, this is going to expose the Tories, Milliband actually woke up a bit today and gave a robust response in parliament.

i look forward to see you giving "human resources" departments both barrels.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

I think the opposite may well happen, and may indeed be the intention. That is, the consequences of accepting/being pushed into the category disabled, will be so marginalizing - being economically and culturally placed on the edge/outside of normal/able/hardworking society - that people will avoid it at all costs. It will become one of the new 'work house tests', disciplining us all, the 'worth less' disabled, the worthy disabled and the able.

Of course the rhetoric surrounding it will be that of inclusion. A great success will be trumpeted; the relatively small numbers who submit to being worth less than the minimum wage, will be held up as proof of the caring success of inclusion, all the while ignoring the poverty of the minimum wage itself.

Louis MacNeice

That is, I think, absolutely the agenda and likely outcome.

 

[ViolentPanda]

That goes without saying - he's a tory.

We are in danger of running out of words for this bunch of cunts

Freud may vote Conservative in GEs, but he's officially a cross-bencher in the Lords, and was doing his cunt's work for new Labour before ever he did so for the Tories.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Frances Ryan (Guardian)
"It’s as if they are building an underclass. A few million cheap labourers, more cogs than people. It is really something to hear the people meant to represent you articulate the belief that you are not as good as others, that you are not of value. Disabled? Different? Less citizen, more fair game to be exploited."

Frances Ryan appears to be unable to grasp the point that for most of our political leaders, unacquainted with "real life" as they are, and members of an elite as they are, are already saturated in a belief that they're better, of greater value than the common herd. Being surprised that such a sentiment might exist among an elite leads me to think that Ryan is also a member of that elite.

 

[Schmetterling]

I think the opposite may well happen, and may indeed be the intention. That is, the consequences of accepting/being pushed into the category disabled, will be so marginalizing - being economically and culturally placed on the edge/outside of normal/able/hardworking society - that people will avoid it at all costs. It will become one of the new 'work house tests', disciplining us all, the 'worth less' disabled, the worthy disabled and the able.

Of course the rhetoric surrounding it will be that of inclusion. A great success will be trumpeted; the relatively small numbers who submit to being worth less than the minimum wage, will be held up as proof of the caring success of inclusion, all the while ignoring the poverty of the minimum wage itself.

Louis MacNeice

Very good point, too. They will find a way doing both; unfortunately.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

Freud may vote Conservative in GEs, but he's officially a cross-bencher in the Lords, and was doing his cunt's work for new Labour before ever he did so for the Tories.

I have a feeling Nye Bevan would have had a few words to say about new labour...

 

[Pickman's model]

I have a feeling Nye Bevan would have had a few words to say about new labour...

one beginning f and one beginning o would seem appropriate