FTFA: "Talent is highly mobile," Varley, a Catholic, said. "If we fail to pay or are constrained from paying competitive rates then that talent will move to another employer."
I never realised 'talent' was needed to lose so much money. I can bankrupt their bank for half the price.
"Talent is highly mobile," Varley, a Catholic, said. "If we fail to pay or are constrained from paying competitive rates then that talent will move to another employer."
Every article has some fool justifying the ridiculous bonus' and salaries with the same lame excuse.
Catran:"Talent is highly mobile," Varley, a Catholic, said. "If we fail to pay or are constrained from paying competitive rates then that talent will move to another employer."
Every article has some fool justifying the ridiculous bonus' and salaries with the same lame excuse.
/facepalm
That's not a lame excuse, that's blackmail. That's "give us all your money or we'll move to Switzerland". Given that the banking sector is about 10% of the entire UK economy, their pretty much holding a gun to the government's head.
AtikuX:FTFA: "Talent is highly mobile," Varley, a Catholic, said. "If we fail to pay or are constrained from paying competitive rates then that talent will move to another employer."
I never realised 'talent' was needed to lose so much money. I can bankrupt their bank for half the price.
Agreed. And it's called a non-compete clause. Lets not pretend like we've never heard of them. If they want to flee the country to avoid it, all I can say is PEACE OUT BIATCHES.
I'm sure this is the sort of thing the Anglicans hope for whenever they let some filthy heathen speak at one of their churches. Maybe not as much as they hope for a raghead talking about the joys of buggering goats, but they've got to be satisfied with a papist talking about how right it is to rob the poor.
"The injunction of Jesus to love others as ourselves is an endorsement of self-interest," Goldman's Griffiths said Oct. 20, his voice echoing around the gold-mosaic walls of St. Paul's Cathedral, whose 365-feet-high dome towers over the City, London's financial district. "We have to tolerate the inequality as a way to achieving greater prosperity and opportunity for all."
Let me think about this for a second.
Injunction: love others as you love your self.
Expression of injunction: My means of loving myself is to be rewarded with salary X, where X is a dollar amount equivalent to personal worth and personal worth is innate and cultivated talent.
SO my means of loving myself is to receive pay that is equivalent to my personal worth. My means of loving others as I love myself is that they receive pay that is equal to their personal worth. In this way I love people as I love myself.
Presumption: Love is an activity that implies I have responsibility. Example, when I love myself I am accountalbe for whatever love is. WHen I love others, I am, again, accountable for whatever love might be.
In the above, love is equated with salary adequate to personal worth.
But, my salary does not come from me, it is an external response contingent on external varialbes. So, I am not actually accountalbe for my salary. A salary is not my reflection of my own personal worth, it is an external reflection of my personal self worht. For instance, if i were to be fired, and receive no salary, then I could not love myself under these conditions (that salary = love). Futher, if someone else had no salary, then it would be impossible to love them as well.
I am definately not Christian, but for these reasons I have difficulty using salary to fulfil any command to love.
Now the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were only two days away, and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some sly way to arrest Jesus and kill him.
"But not during the Feast," they said, "or the people may riot."
While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.
Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, "Why this waste of perfume?
It could have been sold for more than a year's wages and the money given to the poor." And they rebuked her harshly.
"Leave her alone," said Jesus. "Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me.
The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me.
She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial.
I tell you the truth, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."
See? Jesus said there will always be poor people.
And He said we can help them any time we want.
Well, He didn't say I had to.
And I don't want to.
So why even bother helping the poor, when even the Son of God acknowledged the hopelessness of ever ridding ourselves of the scourge of shiftless parasites too lazy to lift themselves up by their bootstraps?
Abstruse
2009-11-05 03:12:52 AM
NewportBarGuy
2009-11-05 03:41:01 AM
Occam's Chainsaw
2009-11-05 04:02:45 AM
Done in one.
cloud_van_dame
2009-11-05 05:55:58 AM
ParadigmLeftShift
2009-11-05 06:00:16 AM
Bigdogdaddy
2009-11-05 06:50:21 AM
Just a little reading for him
buddyrtr
2009-11-05 06:58:08 AM
Chris4549
2009-11-05 07:05:18 AM
Slaxl
2009-11-05 07:14:36 AM
Jesus Christ!
Unknown_Poltroon
2009-11-05 07:32:48 AM
Just a little reading for him
Bah. All you need is a camel, a really good grinder, a big needle, and a lot of free time.
Pick
2009-11-05 07:36:53 AM
Then I thought about all the poor souls that are paying close to 20% and more interest on their credit cards and $39 late fees.
Yeah, that's what Jesus would do.
Snarcoleptic_Hoosier
2009-11-05 07:36:54 AM
/Not political, despises both parties equally
TaGirl_Keri
2009-11-05 07:37:15 AM
Dear Jerk
2009-11-05 07:39:03 AM
imashark
2009-11-05 07:39:46 AM
Nemo's Brother
2009-11-05 07:48:53 AM
AtikuX
2009-11-05 07:56:15 AM
I never realised 'talent' was needed to lose so much money. I can bankrupt their bank for half the price.
Catran
2009-11-05 08:00:13 AM
Every article has some fool justifying the ridiculous bonus' and salaries with the same lame excuse.
/facepalm
Bad_Seed
2009-11-05 08:04:37 AM
Every article has some fool justifying the ridiculous bonus' and salaries with the same lame excuse.
/facepalm
That's not a lame excuse, that's blackmail. That's "give us all your money or we'll move to Switzerland". Given that the banking sector is about 10% of the entire UK economy, their pretty much holding a gun to the government's head.
/ain't capitalism grand!
justtray
2009-11-05 08:15:42 AM
I never realised 'talent' was needed to lose so much money. I can bankrupt their bank for half the price.
Agreed. And it's called a non-compete clause. Lets not pretend like we've never heard of them. If they want to flee the country to avoid it, all I can say is PEACE OUT BIATCHES.
rumpelstiltskin
2009-11-05 08:43:06 AM
lajimi
2009-11-05 08:44:45 AM
Massa Damnata
2009-11-05 08:52:57 AM
Let me think about this for a second.
Injunction: love others as you love your self.
Expression of injunction: My means of loving myself is to be rewarded with salary X, where X is a dollar amount equivalent to personal worth and personal worth is innate and cultivated talent.
SO my means of loving myself is to receive pay that is equivalent to my personal worth. My means of loving others as I love myself is that they receive pay that is equal to their personal worth. In this way I love people as I love myself.
Presumption: Love is an activity that implies I have responsibility. Example, when I love myself I am accountalbe for whatever love is. WHen I love others, I am, again, accountable for whatever love might be.
In the above, love is equated with salary adequate to personal worth.
But, my salary does not come from me, it is an external response contingent on external varialbes. So, I am not actually accountalbe for my salary. A salary is not my reflection of my own personal worth, it is an external reflection of my personal self worht. For instance, if i were to be fired, and receive no salary, then I could not love myself under these conditions (that salary = love). Futher, if someone else had no salary, then it would be impossible to love them as well.
I am definately not Christian, but for these reasons I have difficulty using salary to fulfil any command to love.
RoxtarRyan
2009-11-05 09:01:09 AM
Parthenogenetic
2009-11-05 09:08:39 AM
Now the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were only two days away, and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some sly way to arrest Jesus and kill him.
"But not during the Feast," they said, "or the people may riot."
While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.
Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, "Why this waste of perfume?
It could have been sold for more than a year's wages and the money given to the poor." And they rebuked her harshly.
"Leave her alone," said Jesus. "Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me.
The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me.
She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial.
I tell you the truth, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."
See? Jesus said there will always be poor people.
And He said we can help them any time we want.
Well, He didn't say I had to.
And I don't want to.
So why even bother helping the poor, when even the Son of God acknowledged the hopelessness of ever ridding ourselves of the scourge of shiftless parasites too lazy to lift themselves up by their bootstraps?