"It's not the long run, so I'm not dead."

Newcastle upon Tyne was highlighted as one of the worst offenders. It employs a dedicated 'breastfeeding peer support co-ordinator' and a 'composting supervisor', attracting a salary of up to £23,470 to run a facility that turns garden waste into compost.

Wait, that's the worst you could find ? New mothers don't need advice and encouragement on breastfeeding ? Garden waste magically disappears ?

One of the council's most diverse employee is a part-time sword bearer and mace bearer to help mayor David Wood on ceremonial occasions.

I highly doubt that's his or her only role. In my local council the ceremonial officer is also the secretary to the Mayor.

In short, as usual with the Taxpayers' Alliance, f*ck off, you reactionary idiots.

I hate the civil service rules
And I won't open letter bombs for you
Bus driver!
Ambulance man!
Ticket inspector!
I DONT UNDERSTAND

I train Lemurs in underwater combat and take my job very seriously thank you.

What, no telephone sanitizer or hairstylist references?
Fixed that.

Can we include 'economic advisors' on one of the arks, please?

Anarchy is the only answer.

And letter 'm' thieves.

You know, if they just gave everyone a job as a street football coordinator, everybody would be able to pay their mortgages and it would fix our recession right away...

Composting coordinator? LOL. Ah...

"universal employment" in the Marxist-Leninist model, great "job" there Britain. Go to Cuba if you want to see how well communism works for all the people there who are universally employed, standing around doing nothing for a few cents a day. It's good to see Europe is doing nothing to arrest its slide into being a total socialist craphole. Even with our temporary presidential setback America will still be economically kicking their ass for decades to come.

Wait, there is more than one Brtish government? Does John Brown know about this?

FarkinNortherner: In short, as usual with the Taxpayers' Alliance, f*ck off, you reactionary idiots.

Thiiiiiiiiiiiiiis. As someone who pays taxes, I do wish the Taxpayers' Alliance would wind their tedious necks in and bugger right off. I resent the implication that, by paying taxes, I want to be represented by the sort of red-faced, spittle-flecked Little-Englander who agrees with, and provides quotes to order for, whatever exaggerated horsecrap the Daily Mail are wetting their knickers over this week.

It's like a group calling themselves 'The Fark Users' Alliance' campaigning for the banning of Foobies links.

halfmoth: And letter 'm' thieves.

WIN!!!

/attept?

That's nice, but if you're going to make work, make WORK.

Jal-co-za: What, no telephone sanitizer or hairstylist references?
Fixed that.

Can we include 'economic advisors' on one of the arks, please?

You laugh now, but wait until the remaining population dies from a disease contracted through dirty telephones.

Been pulling this shiat for years

How else do you think the labour party are going to stay in power? They need a client state to vote for them, economics be damned.

No Such Agency: "universal employment" in the Marxist-Leninist model, great "job" there Britain. Go to Cuba if you want to see how well communism works for all the people there who are universally employed, standing around doing nothing for a few cents a day.

It's arguably better than begging wealthy corporations and business owners to create a few more jobs.

When the rich decide they don't want their wealth "trickling down" so much anymore, it's up to the government to be the employer of last resort. And we all pay for it out of our taxes, unfortunately.

here's a job they neglected: PROOF READERS!

costas
FarkinNortherner: In short, as usual with the Taxpayers' Alliance, f*ck off, you reactionary idiots.

Thiiiiiiiiiiiiiis. As someone who pays taxes, I do wish the Taxpayers' Alliance would wind their tedious necks in and bugger right off. I resent the implication that, by paying taxes, I want to be represented by the sort of red-faced, spittle-flecked Little-Englander who agrees with, and provides quotes to order for, whatever exaggerated horsecrap the Daily Mail are wetting their knickers over this week.

It's like a group calling themselves 'The Fark Users' Alliance' campaigning for the banning of Foobies links.

But if no one were raising the issue your taxes would be so high you couldn't afford to grab your dick. Maybe you should thank them after you curse them.(fark that, you probably work for the government or are on the dole.)

Has anyone mentioned that he spelled "attempt" incorrectly in his headline?

I think that would be funny.

They should hire spellcheckers.

stiletto_the_wise
No Such Agency: "universal employment" in the Marxist-Leninist model, great "job" there Britain. Go to Cuba if you want to see how well communism works for all the people there who are universally employed, standing around doing nothing for a few cents a day.

It's arguably better than begging wealthy corporations and business owners to create a few more jobs.

When the rich decide they don't want their wealth "trickling down" so much anymore, it's up to the government to be the employer of last resort. And we all pay for it out of our taxes, unfortunately.

Utter nonsense. The amount of taxes confiscated in order to create a government "job" is far greater than the money received. Due to the hopeless inefficiency, waste, fraud, and bureaucracy in all governments.

Therefore government jobs are a net drain on the economy. If they are actually needed jobs that is one thing, but if they are just make work, then its a travesty.

here (new window)is one link from the Cato Institute that explains it.

Impudent Domain: costas
FarkinNortherner: In short, as usual with the Taxpayers' Alliance, f*ck off, you reactionary idiots.

Thiiiiiiiiiiiiiis. As someone who pays taxes, I do wish the Taxpayers' Alliance would wind their tedious necks in and bugger right off. I resent the implication that, by paying taxes, I want to be represented by the sort of red-faced, spittle-flecked Little-Englander who agrees with, and provides quotes to order for, whatever exaggerated horsecrap the Daily Mail are wetting their knickers over this week.

It's like a group calling themselves 'The Fark Users' Alliance' campaigning for the banning of Foobies links.

But if no one were raising the issue your taxes would be so high you couldn't afford to grab your dick. Maybe you should thank them after you curse them.(fark that, you probably work for the government or are on the dole.)

...except they seem to get upset about stupid crap like this, rather than the stuff that's actually worth getting upset about.

Give them a call. Maybe they could raise the far more worrying issue that someone's apparently charging you to grab your dick.

FarkinNortherner: Newcastle upon Tyne was highlighted as one of the worst offenders. It employs a dedicated 'breastfeeding peer support co-ordinator' and a 'composting supervisor', attracting a salary of up to £23,470 to run a facility that turns garden waste into compost.

Wait, that's the worst you could find ? New mothers don't need advice and encouragement on breastfeeding ? Garden waste magically disappears ?

As a current resident of newcastle upon tyne, i'm getting a kick out of this support group.

/you should see the lovely compost yards they have here

This is an example of how not to employ keynesianism. But hey, it's like everything else that works in certain situations, if it doesn't work in all situations it's useless.

Impudent Domain: Therefore government jobs are a net drain on the economy. If they are actually needed jobs that is one thing, but if they are just make work, then its a travesty.

What about the multiplier effect, where each dollar spent, regardless of how it's spent, will induce more than one dollar in subsequent economic activity?

What about the fact that poor people tend to put their money into circulation more quickly than rich people, so that a handout to the poor will stimulate the economy more than a tax break to the rich?

What about the tragedy of the commons, where no private business will take upon things that will better the economy with no personal profit (e.g., interstate highways, hydroelectric dams, etc), so that government spending is the only solution?

Impudent Domain: Utter nonsense. The amount of taxes confiscated in order to create a government "job" is far greater than the money received. Due to the hopeless inefficiency, waste, fraud, and bureaucracy in all governments.

Which is why I said "unfortunately". Look, you can't have a functioning society with levels of unemployment above a certain level. What that level is is a subject of debate, but people have to work to survive. As bad an option as it is, the government MUST MUST MUST MUST be the employer of last resort when the free market fails (and yes, it is failing spectacularly right now).

What is the alternative? Forcing businesses to hire? Oops, there's the government again. Total free-market? Are you willing to deal with 20% unemployment? 50%?? How much should society rely on the whims of the rich to open up their treasure chests and sprinkle a little money out here and there when they feel like it.

stiletto_the_wise: Impudent Domain: Utter nonsense. The amount of taxes confiscated in order to create a government "job" is far greater than the money received. Due to the hopeless inefficiency, waste, fraud, and bureaucracy in all governments.

Which is why I said "unfortunately". Look, you can't have a functioning society with levels of unemployment above a certain level. What that level is is a subject of debate, but people have to work to survive. As bad an option as it is, the government MUST MUST MUST MUST be the employer of last resort when the free market fails (and yes, it is failing spectacularly right now).

What is the alternative? Forcing businesses to hire? Oops, there's the government again. Total free-market? Are you willing to deal with 20% unemployment? 50%?? How much should society rely on the whims of the rich to open up their treasure chests and sprinkle a little money out here and there when they feel like it.


You sir are a moron. in a free market business expansion is caused by the desires of the populace. Person A wants Object 1, Businessman C decides to make Object 1 thereby employing Persons 2-5 who have their own wants. Fulfilling a real market need or want and employing people is how you BECOME and STAY rich.

Impudent Domain: But if no one were raising the issue your taxes would be so high you couldn't afford to grab your dick.

If only there were some system whereby taxation is ultimately limited. Electing someone else, for example.

Maybe you should thank them after you curse them.

Categorically not -

costas:
I resent the implication that, by paying taxes, I want to be represented by the sort of red-faced, spittle-flecked Little-Englander who agrees with, and provides quotes to order for, whatever exaggerated horsecrap the Daily Mail are wetting their knickers over this week.

- and that's why.

fark that, you probably work for the government or are on the dole.

Arguably I suffer taxation far more than I benefit from government spending, since I've never taken a day's benefits in my life, nor do I work in the public sector, and I have been a higher rate tax payer since 2002. I do, however, appreciate the need for an adequately funded health service and education system.

SR_NightBane: You sir are a moron. in a free market business expansion is caused by the desires of the populace. Person A wants Object 1, Businessman C decides to make Object 1 thereby employing Persons 2-5 who have their own wants.

That's how it works in a perfect world. Let's see what happens in the real world:

Person C receives a multi-hundred-million dollar inheritance from daddy and when he gets bored of his daily wealth-induced hedonism, decides to invest 1% of his cash horde and become Businessman C selling Object 1.

Businessman C calls his Harvard buddy who's a lawyer now, and asks him to set up some artificial legal barriers to entry and threats of lawsuits so competitors stay away.

Businessman C locates his headquarters in the Caymans so he pays no taxes.

Businessman C contracts with an outsourced manufacturing company so he can get Object 1 for $0.50 each without having to deal with pesky organized labor or human rights or any of that annoying shiat.

Businessman C hires a few token American workers so that someone speaks English when the office is called.

Businessman C calls another Harvard buddy (who's a Congressman now) and tells him people need Object 1 and his business should be subsidized. Taxpayers now pay $0.40 for each Object 1 that he produces.

Businessman C sells Object 1 for $20 each because of his great monopoly protection.

Nobody buys Object 1 because it's too expensive and they're all out of work. After a little bit, Businessman C closes up shop, skips out on his payables, screws his suppliers, employees and his few customers, and declares everything a massive write-off, saving him from paying any taxes for a few more years.

Businessman C goes back to bathing in his bathtub full of money while the rest of us remain on the street looking for work again.

Gothnet: Been pulling this shiat for years

How else do you think the labour party are going to stay in power? They need a client state to vote for them, economics be damned.

You're kidding aren't you? I thought only the Democratic party got away with this ...

stiletto_the_wise: SR_NightBane: You sir are a moron. in a free market business expansion is caused by the desires of the populace. Person A wants Object 1, Businessman C decides to make Object 1 thereby employing Persons 2-5 who have their own wants.

That's how it works in a perfect world. Let's see what happens in the real world:

Person C receives a multi-hundred-million dollar inheritance from daddy and when he gets bored of his daily wealth-induced hedonism, decides to invest 1% of his cash horde and become Businessman C selling Object 1.

Businessman C calls his Harvard buddy who's a lawyer now, and asks him to set up some artificial legal barriers to entry and threats of lawsuits so competitors stay away.

Businessman C locates his headquarters in the Caymans so he pays no taxes.

Businessman C contracts with an outsourced manufacturing company so he can get Object 1 for $0.50 each without having to deal with pesky organized labor or human rights or any of that annoying shiat.

Businessman C hires a few token American workers so that someone speaks English when the office is called.

Businessman C calls another Harvard buddy (who's a Congressman now) and tells him people need Object 1 and his business should be subsidized. Taxpayers now pay $0.40 for each Object 1 that he produces.

Businessman C sells Object 1 for $20 each because of his great monopoly protection.

Nobody buys Object 1 because it's too expensive and they're all out of work. After a little bit, Businessman C closes up shop, skips out on his payables, screws his suppliers, employees and his few customers, and declares everything a massive write-off, saving him from paying any taxes for a few more years.

Businessman C goes back to bathing in his bathtub full of money while the rest of us remain on the street looking for work again.

All of those problems can be dealt with by cutting government OUT of the economic decision making process except inheritance which isn't the issue you seem to make it out to be.
If government cannot regulate competition then by default a judge cannot adjudicate matters so competition is illegal, if one company can find a cheaper way to produce a product eventually a second company can find a cheaper way to produce it, and if you want to attract the best employees you do that by offering them the best incentive to work for you in their field of expertise. Free-market capitalism has been the driving force behind such a statistically huge amount of advances over the last couple hundred years to argue otherwise you have to be either illiterate in matters of history or willfully ignorant.

stiletto_the_wise: What is the alternative? Forcing businesses to hire? Oops, there's the government again. Total free-market? Are you willing to deal with 20% unemployment? 50%?? How much should society rely on the whims of the rich to open up their treasure chests and sprinkle a little money out here and there when they feel like it.

It's not about "the rich". There's a lot of small business owners who are absolutely not "rich", and if there's a market for their products and services, they'll sell them and hire people.

The greatest problems with unemployment in the UK are the tax thresholds and benefit levels. A low earner pays so much of a marginal tax rate by working that it's just not worth them going to work at all. And of course, the minimum wage means that there are jobs that people can't get legally employed for, so the work gets outsourced elsewhere.

Plus any form of Keynesian job creation doesn't create jobs, it just moves them. You take £20 of extra taxes from me to prop up a dismal car company, that's £20 I'm not going to spend on Wii games, Starbucks coffee or going to the zoo. So now, you've got 0 benefit in terms of jobs, but you've also made the world a worse place.

Lulz. My government needs a permanent yakety sax background track imo.

farkeruk:
that's £20 I'm not going to spend on Wii games, Starbucks coffee or going to the zoo. So now, you've got 0 benefit in terms of jobs, but you've also made the world a worse place.

Less Starbucks would not make the world a worse place.

Also, LOL at whoever cited the oh-so-serious Cato Institute to back up my lazy trolling. Says it all, really.

I used to be a roller disco coach, so I'm really getting a kick out of this thread.

No Such Agency: Less Starbucks would not make the world a worse place.

Millions of people who spend money there disagree with you.

See, this doesn't work in a world with limited resources. "You have to spend money to make money" != "You will make money if you spend money".

well we can look forward to all the other "job creation" that Obama is gonna do for us in a short while.

Then we'll all be dependent on the government for our jobs.

And then the only thing that will make sense is full support of the government because we'll depend on them for our very livelihood.

SR_NightBane: All of those problems can be dealt with by cutting government OUT of the economic decision making process except inheritance which isn't the issue you seem to make it out to be.

And how do you propose to do that, when there are so many rich people ready to bankroll the campaigns of politicians who will put the government right back into the process?

FarkinNortherner:
Wait, that's the worst you could find ? New mothers don't need advice and encouragement on breastfeeding ?

Not from the council. The NHS provides breastfeeding advice through midwives, antenatal classes and clinics.

I can't see why there'd be a need for a council breastfeeding advisor. Though, that might be coloured by the fact than I'm imagining a council breastfeeding advisor as a bloke in a donkey jacket with a roll-up cigarette saying "get 'em out then love"...

BarryJV: Not from the council. The NHS provides breastfeeding advice through midwives, antenatal classes and clinics.

I can't see why there'd be a need for a council breastfeeding advisor.

It'll relate to the (widespread) notion of community support and mentoring falling outside the NHS bailiwick and in that of Social Services. While that may well not be the most efficient use of services, and it certainly doesn't work very well where another crossover between NHS services and community support occurs, that of care for the elderly, bear in mind that this is being posited as one of the worst examples of 'bizarre jobs'.

Japan still has them beat, with jobs like elevator button pusher and bowing guest greeter.

Making people employed puts money in their pockets, which they use to buy things, which makes the wheels of the economy go round.

But if you want to REALLY kick things off, don't make these fake jobs. BUILD INFRASTRUCTURE. Fill potholes, build railroads, man busses, plant sidewalks, clean parks, new power lines, wind power, recycling plants, you name it. Tear down ghetto neighborhoods and rebuild them from the ground up. Put those unyielding masses to work, they need it as much as the economy does.

A recession is an OPPORTUNITY to do what needs to be done. (You know who else thought that?) Don't let it go to waste!

FarkinNortherner: bear in mind that this is being posited as one of the worst examples of 'bizarre jobs'.

Most of the others could easily be bizarre job titles for ordinary jobs, I'm sure "Composting supervisor" is just a grandiose name for the bloke who drives the JCB that digs over the rotting waste.

As a father of two that has seen NHS breastfeeding services in two counties (we moved house between kids) I'm pretty confident in saying that there's no lack of support and also that breastfeeding services are best provided in the context of overall post-natal care, not by some council flunky, donkey jacket or not.

The Taxpayers Alliance have a terrible tendency to produce stunts like this list of silly-sounding names with no context, that doesn't mean that they don't occasionally hit the mark.

SR_NightBane:
All of those problems can be dealt with by cutting government OUT of the economic decision making process except inheritance which isn't the issue you seem to make it out to be.
If government cannot regulate competition then by default a judge cannot adjudicate matters so competition is illegal, if one company can find a cheaper way to produce a product eventually a second company can find a cheaper way to produce it, and if you want to attract the best employees you do that by offering them the best incentive to work for you in their field of expertise. Free-market capitalism has been the driving force behind such a statistically huge amount of advances over the last couple hundred years to argue otherwise you have to be either illiterate in matters of history or willfully ignorant.

So how far to you take the gov't out of decision making? Do you eliminate minimum wage? Forget about OSHA- or consumer safety- all together?

And if you are a struggling company who can make the product cheaper, but you have no money to aggressively market your product, are you financially more viable? Don't forget shipping costs, and the possibility that the item won't sell and no stores will buy it from you. And, if in the end you do manage to beat the odds and succeed, that doesn't mean costs will come down. Look at the communications industry. Costs initially came down, yes, but are on the rise again. The hands-off farkeeps allowing company mergers, thus negating any competitive pricing necessity. Where I live I can only get cable internet; DSL is non-existent. There is only one company I can get service from as well. So of course I cannot haggle for price breaks because there is no other company available.

Granted trademark protections do limit competition initially, but isn't that what pushes folks to at least attempt to build bigger and better, not copy and rename?

'bouncy castle attendant'




/ Approves
// probably not obscure to most of you.