The BBC reports that:-

The outlook for jobs has worsened with a survey of 2,100 employers finding that four out of five had no plans to hire workers in the next three months.
The survey by Manpower found that hiring expectations were at their lowest level for three years.

But the Reed job index for November reports:-

November figures: Job opportunities rise to 23 month high
Figures released for November show a steep rise in employer demand for new UK workers, with the Reed Job Index reaching a new record of 133.
New job opportunities rose to their highest level for nearly two years in November, with a four point rise across the UK compared to October.
Overall, demand has risen 33 per cent since December 2009, when the Reed Job Index baseline was set at 100.

So, what is it?

I don't approve of war

I don't approve of war

Stocks, shares, morals and ethics

I have given some thought to my own morality and how this corresponds with how I would buy stocks and shares, I shall try to share these thoughts with you, but its around 4am when I'm writing this, so it could be a bit woo.

I used to have morals and stuff, or I thought I did, within my own smartie tube. Moral justification for my actions even when I was being a bit of cunt. But some time around 2003 it all got a bit blurry and I didn't give much thought to such things. But now I'm grasping around for some moral framework. Kropotkin and his mutual aid seems to be a bit unjudgemental, too evolutionary to be a moral framework. I feel more at home with Epictetus and his stoicism, "Men are disturbed not by things, but by the views which they take of them”, by not giving a shit, a shit is not given, or something.

Right now I'm reading Kant, his categorial imperitive sounds cool "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.".

I'm not sure how it corresponds but I'm quite ambivalent about tax avoidance, its legal but certain quarters frown on it. Tax evasion is illegal, down with that sort of thing. One of UKUncut's things about tax avoidance is that whilst its okay for individuals to have ISA to avoid paying personal taxes, when multi-national corporations do it for hundreds of millions of pounds, then its not okay. The categorical imperitive dictates that this is invalid, tax avoidance is either univerally okay or universally not okay. Maybe its a continuum fallacy, I dunno, I don't care either.

So just to err on the side of caution, I'm going to give the tax avoiding benefits of ISAs a miss and pay full tax on any savings, and be damned. Its the sort of thing that The Man Who Hates Fun would do.

However, that still leaves me trying find something to do with the great piles of wealth I have accumulating around me. So on to stocks and shares.

After reading some Guardian artical on ethical investing, I don't think I trust other people's judgement on what's an ethical investment or not. Is investing in guns and nuclear power bad, but investing in tax avoiding companies good? Is investing in human trafficing bad, but in RyanAir good? I'm not sure.

However, whilst I'm uncertain about investing ethically, I'm absolutely certain that in terms of spending my ethics are the greatest, I know how to spend my money better than anyone else, the more money I have to spend, the better the world will be, on my terms, by my own morals whatever they be. Other people could disagree with that, but then, that's just them saying their morality is superior to mine.

Anyhoo, given that ethically the more money I have to spend, the better, then the return on investment of my investments is more important than the morality of the companies I invest in.

For example, if I buy shares in British American Tobacco, who've been steadily delivering 25% year on year for the past ten years then that is a morally good investment. BATS make their money from willing customers willingly buying their tobacco products, they don't make money out of me buying their shares, I make money out of them. Other people could own their shares, but then other people would be getting that 25% year on year and then possibly spending it in ways that aren't as ethical as me.

On the other hand, shares in QinetiQ, the global defence company, who make weapons that kill people, have given a relatively crap return on investment over the past five years, in fact their price is 40% down over five years. Regardless of whether they sell weapons, they are a morally bad investment.

Of course, all of this is hopelessly naive. I know little about morals, or the difference between morals and ethics. And also, I'm not too good at stocks and shares.

Film idea: That that brings them together

I've had a great idea for a low budget Brit-flick film thing:-

A group of strangers find themselves together in some kind of situation, I dunno, shipwrecked on a desert island, or stuck in a lift, or kidnapped by a genius psychopath, and after trying to figure out why they are there, they come to the conclusion that the thing that connects them is some shadowy person from their past, a mutual acquaintance, someone used to live with them, sold them a car, went to school with them, picked them up hitchhiking, whatever, this one person that they all know.

Then it turns out that he's got nothing to do with their predicament, and its just coincidence, like six degrees of separation, and after pinning all their hopes that its cos of this guy, they end up dead. Whatever mechanism or person that brought them together and killed them is just a little puzzled by their unexpected connection, but doesn't let it interfere with the sick but otherwise quite banal plan.

Later the shadowy bloke from their past reads about their deaths in the newspaper, gets a little freaked out that these disparate people who he knew all died together, but then otherwise just carries on with his day.

Life goes on.

CrimeTube.com and that woman being racist on the tram

Earlier today there was a tweet by Old Holborn on that twitter about the latest viral video, a woman having a racist rant on a crowded tram somewhere near Croydon. As is the norm these days the YouTube video became a news story and at around 6pm the BBC were reporting that the woman had been arrested. Some on twitter were calling for her kids to be taken away.

Anyhoo, as I am a completely normal user of the internet, well versed with porn websites, I've had this ace idea, a video website like RedTube, YouPorn, PornHub et al, but with youtube videos of people committing crimes. Viewers can submit ones they've found on YouTube, and people can watch and rate them. Then at around 6pm every day, the police can arrest the subjects of the top five most 'popular'.

It would be the greatest website since Hot Or Not. Everyone loves watching miscreants and rapscallions, remember the spectacle of the London Riots, now imagine a whole website of that sort of compelling footage. We may never again need the BBC or ITN for our crime porn.

Sure there'd be tawdry stuff, like burglary and assault, but cos its all ranked by views and ratings, the important stuff, like cat-trapping and racist rants, would float to the top.
Luckily the url crimetube.com is still available, but I can't do it, I've got no idea about websites, but anyhoo, I claim this website idea first, just like in that xkcd strip.

Looking down, so down

The other day I was putting together a dataset looking at how the wealth of the super rich, to investigate just how accurate the phrase "the rich are getting richer" really is. Incidentally my conclusion is that for the top 50 richest people in the world their wealth only increases by roughly 15% year on year.

However, this lead to a discussion about how I focus too much on the wrong things when I should be focussing on the poor and the needy, over-population and the scarcity of land. Again, this lead on to a discussion about whether I look down on poor people. After a bit of introspection, I don't think I do. I don't consider someone's wealth if I look down on them, I think I'd probably consider whether they are uncouth and uncivilised, the intolerant and the bigotted. I could be wrong, but I consider these traits as better reasons to look down on someone than the state of their balance sheet.

That said, I don't think I look down on people much at all.

There was a story on the BBC news website about how dirty looks are putting off mothers in deprived areas from playgroups

The study was based on the experiences of 30 parents - 29 mothers and one father - in a deprived area of Bristol, who between them had experience of 97 different groups for families with young children.

The research found that one in four had been once to a group - and had been so uncomfortable that they had never gone again.

The most typical reason had been because of a sense of social unease - either because other parents were "too stuck up" or "too rough".

There were fears of being excluded by established "cliques", or facing unpleasant comments.

One in five were "phobic" about encounters with groups of other parents. These parents tended to be the poorest, with the least qualifications and the lowest self-esteem.

A single "dirty look" could be enough to deter them from any return to use childcare services.

Dr Jones says that one mother did not even make it past the front door, but had turned round and gone home when she was put off by the perceived attitude of another parent.

...

Those making the most use of such mother and toddler groups tended to be those who already had the social skills, confidence and support networks.

After I read this, I empathised. I remembered the times I've had low self-esteem and low confidence, the first time I went to cub scouts when I was eight, the first time I went into the girl's common room in the 6th form, the first time I went to National Pop League club night in Glasgow. I don't have those fears of dirty looks now because after years of being in the cubs, or louching round the common room, and becoming a fixture in the Glasgow indie scene, I noticed the sheer lack of dirty looks from the regulars when new people came in. The only dirty-lookage would between people who'd had unwise but very intimate experiences with each other, not complete strangers.

I believe its probably the same deal at everywhere, newbies think that they're getting dirty looks, but they are mistaken, the regulars are not giving dirty looks at all, no opinion has been formed. In things like playgroups, cub scouts, 6th form common rooms and premier Glasgow indie clubnights, it takes time for the regulars to form an opinion of newbies.

Its all in the eye of the beholder, the newbies need to just oull themselves together, get over it and remember the way it is for next time. And there hangs my privileged upbringing, for these mothers from deprived areas probably never went to cub scouts, the girls 6th form common room at Bolton School or any of the many indie club nights in Glasgow which made me the ultra-confident sex tyranosaurus I am today.

But if the newbies are going to interpret whatever looks they recieve as dirty, that what are the regulars to do?

Luckily the BBC article had the some sugestions

Sure Start centres were seen to attract a wider range of social groups than voluntary organisations, says Dr Jones. This could be because they had paid staff and were less likely to be dominated by one group of parents.

They also sometimes had a designated "welcomer" to give new arrivals more confidence.
Another way of preventing cliques, she says, has been to run playgroup sessions in limited blocks of time, six or eight weeks, so that parents would not develop into networks that would be off-putting to newcomers.

"My study has found that going to a group can be a daunting experience, especially if a mother doesn't know anyone there," says Dr Jones.

"The mother and group need to 'fit' together. Mothers need to feel that others in the group are her social equals, with similar values and attitudes to child-rearing.

"Mothers need to feel their age, social class, and their or their child's ethnic identity will not isolate them in a group."

Those last two paragraphs are worrying and somewhat contradictory, unless they are suggesting that some people should not join specific groups if they don't fit. I'm more into amorphously tolerating and embracing people with different values, atitudes, ages and social classes, rather than rejecting people who don't fit.

Food wastage and three tonnes of carrots

My head has been befuddled for the past three days since I listened to a piece on Radio 4 the other morning about food wastage and some charity who were using 'waste' food.

There's a piece on the BBC news website here and it makes my head even more befuddled. Personally I enjoyed being hectored at by the BBC and well meaning charities, I like to humour people with differing opinions than my own, it relieves me of responsibility for my actions.

I don't know what they want me to do.

The piece on the radio had an interview with a chap from the charity and a factoid that British households throw away 25% of the food they buy, when the interviewer questioned whether that was things like peelings and eggshells, they charity chap admitted that if you included those things it would be closer to 38% of food is thrown away by households.

In my household we throw away no food. Personally I'm a manufacturing engineer following the just in time strategy for inventory, so I only buy food for meals on the day I'm consuming it. Peelings and stuff go in the compost heap in the back garden. Those 25% and 38% figures are talking about other people, not me. I don't buy food that I'm not going to eat. I'm not quite sure why anyone would.

Anyhoo, the piece on the radio went on to cover what the charity does, it has a food warehouse in south London where food that supermarket's don't want it is stored and sorted by volunteers. On Saturday they were doing a thing in Trafalgar Square where they were making up 5,000 meals with this unwanted food.

On of the factoids covered in the piece was that there were three tonnes of carrots in the warehouse, unwanted by supermarkets.

They did point out that in the past three years supermarkets have started using more and more wonky vegetables in their ready meals and value ranges, although I suspect this is more due to a change in EU directives which has made it possible rather than some anti-waste agenda by the shops.

For the last three days that three tonnes of carrots has rested heavily in my mind.

I don't understand what they want the public to do.

The public have already bought sufficient carrots, all that they want to eat, the three tonnes is surplus. Should we have bought more carrots? Should we have bought more food than we wanted?

The supermarkets didn't want the carrots, knowing that they wouldn't be sold and they would be wasted. No one else in the chain were willing to pay for the carrots, so they ended up being given away for free to the charity.

Is it the bastard farmer's fault for growing three tonnes too many carrots? Well, no, it was probably just good weather that fucked up his quantities.

So just what is the problem? Its just a surplus, not waste. The alternative is a shortage of carrots, or somehow magically growing exactly the right quantity.

Should we have bought more carrots?

I don't even like carrots. Should I have bought the damned things and eaten them even if they taste like carrots which I don't like, just so they wouldn't be wasted?

In the piece on the BBC website there are these two consecutive paragraphs

"Over the last four decades food prices have come down and food has become more disposable," he said.
"But there are a billion hungry people in the world and demand for more food in the West is contributing to that by pushing up prices elsewhere but then we're throwing a third of it away.

Are food prices coming down or going up? Yes, its possible that both cases can happen simultaneously in two different places. But it makes no sense.

Surely if there is a surplus then the problem is just in transporting it to where its wanted, rather than by trying to get people to don't want to eat three tonnes of fucking carrots to eat the damned things.

No, making them into carrot cake is not going to make me want to eat the fucking things.

Animal feed, why can't they just feed them to animals?

Do dogs eat carrot cake?